So umm....

Post #4,424 by Fearless Freep 8/9/01 4:53:18 PM Reply	So umm.... ...every time a sports event is broadcast on TV you have to get permission from all 40K attendees? ...or I'm taking a picture of my family at some tourist trap and you happen to wander behind them when I take the photo and that's against the law? Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #4,433 by boxley 8/9/01 6:09:20 PM Reply	it is if you sell it or use for monetary gain You dont think it is wrong stand outside a casino in Vegas and start taking pictures of people. You would last about < 5 minutes. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,444 by Brandioch 8/9/01 8:21:27 PM Reply	There is not law, yet. How many times am I going to have to explain this? Catching my image BY ACCIDENT is NOT the same thing as intentionally photographing me. We covered this in the other thread.
Post #4,519 by Fearless Freep 8/10/01 11:47:37 AM Reply	Shrug your parallel, not mine Catching my image BY ACCIDENT is NOT the same thing as intentionally photographing me. You compared photography to shooting a gun. Shooting a person "BY ACCIDENT" is not the shame as intentionally shooting a person, but it's still illegal Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #4,546 by Brandioch 8/10/01 4:13:46 PM Reply	You didn't read the other thread, did you? We covered this there. What the fuck, I'll cover it again. The KEY concept in the OTHER thread was INTENTIONALLY capturing images. Initially, in regards to speeding tickets. Eventually, it was expanded to whether or not I have any right to privacy once I step outside of my house. Can anyone start photographing me without my permission? My example was that, if I exhibited such behaviour towards a woman, I could be arrested for stalking. But it is okay for non-persons (corporations and such) to do so. Even to retain your image and to run it through recognition software. I don't agree with that. I believe I have a right to privacy even after I leave my house. Consider it an extension of unreasonable search and seizure. The cops can't search me on the street, why should they be allowed to photograph me? Now, because lots of people have cameras and like taking pictures of buildings and their friends and such, it is not unreasonable that I may happen to step into someone's picture. But they usually have the camera visible, and it is apparent that they are photographing something, it is usually also apparent what they are photographing. In which case, it is my fault for ending up in their picture. Again, back to guns. I can go to the firing range and shoot targets. If some idiot runs around down range and I hit him, the cops are not going to punish me. I won't even do jail time. Is it "illegal"? Well, that depends upon what "illegal" really means. No fine, no time, no crime. Which was why I used the gun example in the first place. Most people understand "murder" vs "self defence" vs "accident". Yet all involve someone firing a gun and hitting another person. Which are "illegal"?
Post #4,529 by addison 8/10/01 1:45:09 PM Reply	Re: There is not law, yet. How many times am I going to have to explain this? That's not the issue. Catching my image BY ACCIDENT is NOT the same thing as intentionally photographing me. And how do you tell? Define "accidentally". In a manner than will hold up in court. If I have a video camera taping the street, and you walk down it, is that "intentional"? If I videotape my family and you're in the background spray painting a wall, do I have to shut off the tape as I realise that I'm paying attention to that? "Stalking" laws prohibit some "normal" activity, when a threshold has been reached. But you have to define that threshold. And even then, there are still lots of "legal" activities that are available.... So if you want to elevate these cameras into that area, you have to define that threshold. Not merely wave your arms and insist that its all obvious. What are the thresholds? Jay hit it right on - right now, your stated position would (apparently) make it illegal to take a picture in Disney World. Addison
Post #4,547 by Brandioch 8/10/01 4:23:47 PM Reply	Again, guns. "Define "accidentally". In a manner than will hold up in court. " Been done already. A gun is fired and kills someone. "Murder" vs "self defence" vs "accident". The legal system has already solved this concept for LETHAL events. Why is it such a hard concept to get across for NON-LETHAL events? "If I have a video camera taping the street, and you walk down it, is that "intentional"?" Was it your intent to capture images of people without their knowing/permission? "If I videotape my family and you're in the background spray painting a wall, do I have to shut off the tape as I realise that I'm paying attention to that?" Are you taping me or your family? What is the intent? "So if you want to elevate these cameras into that area, you have to define that threshold. Not merely wave your arms and insist that its all obvious." As I have. If it is your intent to capture images of people on public property. Private property is different as you do have a right to monitor your premises. "What are the thresholds? Jay hit it right on - right now, your stated position would (apparently) make it illegal to take a picture in Disney World." Just as it is illegal to fire a gun at a person. Even in self defense. Which was the reason I used that as an example. Because it is NOT illegal to fire a gun at a person in self defense. This has already been established for lethal events. But you don't seem to understand that a similar criteria could be applied to non-lethal events. Can I fire a gun at Disney World? answer yes or no. And while you're pondering that answer, try substituting "take a picture" for "fire a gun". The answer should become clear.
Post #4,550 by addison 8/10/01 4:36:15 PM Reply	Strawman. Not a parallel. With a gun, you can cause grave bodily danger to someone. Hense the laws prohibiting the unsafe use of them - including if you drop one and it goes off, hurting no one - you may be held liable for not taking adequate care. Other actions aren't so restricted. I might swing my fist and hit you - but until I come CLOSE to doing that, I can swing my fists pretty much as much as I want, walking down the street. The actions are more direct and predictable. Some are. Drunk driving is illegal because you don't KNOW what will happen, and you MIGHT kill somebody - you can't be certain of that until it happens. Was it your intent to capture images of people without their knowing/permission? I don't know, was it? Is it illegal? Nope, not me. Was an accident. Are you taping me or your family? What is the intent? Intent? I don't know - you're the one arresting me, what WAS my intent? You're the one trying to prosecute me, what WAS my intent? Of course my INTENT was NEVER to capture you spray painting those ATM cameras. As I have. If it is your intent to capture images of people on public property. Private property is different as you do have a right to monitor your premises. Not sufficiently (as noted above). Can I take a picture of someone famous walking down the street? What if my family is standing in front of them? What about press conferences? If I see someone committing a crime on property other than mine, can I then take their picture? After all, I'm just capturing the image that's available for me to see. You're making a arbitrary distinction here - and you have to define it, and explain it and figure out the ramifications. Outlawing cameras is pretty drastic. You need a lot more than "Emperor Brandioch says you go to jail... but you, you're cute.. you can go". Which is what "intent" boils down to - its a VERY thorny issue to try and prove. And the easiest to claim (or be prosecuted for) misunderstanding. Can I fire a gun at Disney World? answer yes or no. Its not a yes/no question. Not unless you have taken precautions to ensure that no one will get hurt. If in self defense, that no one other than the target will get hurt (subject to florida law, and I think DW has an exception to prevent guns, so its even thornier). If you shoot someone in fully justified self defense - and that round overpenetrates and kills SOMEONE ELSE (or wounds them) - you are again back on the hook for liability. Oops. And while you're pondering that answer, try substituting "take a picture" for "fire a gun". The answer should become clear. Nope. Darker than mud. And the VERY simple rebuttal to that is that I can't go shooting a gun on the city streets (even if I'm sure not to hit anybody, and not damage any property). But I can take photos rather indiscriminately. I can walk downtown, and take pictures all day, and if you want to illustrate a difference, its up to you. You're just making an argument by authority. It doesn't become you. :) Addison
Post #4,559 by Brandioch 8/10/01 7:04:40 PM Reply	Nope. Note the qualifier. Remember, I specifically noted that one action had LETHAL consequences and the other DID NOT. Now, if we can handle INTENT when death is involved, why is it so hard to handle INTENT when death IS NOT involved? That's why it is a parallel and not a strawman. "Hense the laws prohibiting the unsafe use of them - including if you drop one and it goes off, hurting no one - you may be held liable for not taking adequate care." Hmmmm, I note that you use the word "care" in that statement. I can be liable if I do not take enough care. But you don't see how that applies to taking care when shooting a camera. Why is that? And don't tell me it's about deadly force. I've already explained that I understand that. "Other actions aren't so restricted. I might swing my fist and hit you - but until I come CLOSE to doing that, I can swing my fists pretty much as much as I want, walking down the street. The actions are more direct and predictable." Now, if you will look at the POTENTIAL DAMAGE you will understand why there is a difference. Waving a gun around is just one trigger squeze from KILLING SOMEONE. Waving your fists around requires proximity to the other person. With a camera, physical damage isn't even a threat. Just privacy violation. Which is why I specificly mentioned that there is a DIFFERENCE in LETHAL effect. I asked: "Was it your intent to capture images of people without their knowing/permission?" You replied: "I don't know, was it? Is it illegal? Nope, not me. Was an accident." Which is why we have courts and juries and judges and lawyers. Just like in "accidental" shooting cases. I asked: "Are you taping me or your family? What is the intent?" You replied: "Intent? I don't know - you're the one arresting me, what WAS my intent? You're the one trying to prosecute me, what WAS my intent? Of course my INTENT was NEVER to capture you spray painting those ATM cameras." Again, we already have proceedures setup to handle situations similar to this, but with DEATH. Why do you suppose it would be so hard to handle in NON-LETHAL cases? "Not sufficiently (as noted above)." Ummmm, you didn't include that part. "Can I take a picture of someone famous walking down the street? " That would depend upon why s/he is famous. And what "famous" means. Of course, it also depends upon the wishes of the individual. Or do you feel that your right to photograph him/her is greater than his/her right to privacy? "What if my family is standing in front of them?" Intent. We can handle it in lethal circumstances, but you don't seem to understand it in this context. "What about press conferences?" At which point do we pass the "reasonable man" criteria? "If I see someone committing a crime on property other than mine, can I then take their picture?" Depending upon the crime, I can exercise deadly force to prevent the crime. Why do you think taking a picture would be different? "After all, I'm just capturing the image that's available for me to see." Again, intent. You have a problem with that concept. "You're making a arbitrary distinction here - and you have to define it, and explain it and figure out the ramifications. " Because you would like to believe that does not make it so. I've given very clear criteria. I've even given you a parallel to other situations where INTENT is the deciding factor. But because you don't want to understand that INTENT is the differentiator, you claim that I haven't clarified enough. That's your problem, not mine. "Outlawing cameras is pretty drastic. " WHOOOP WHOOOP WHOOOP !!!STRAWMAN ALERT!!! No where did I say that I would outlaw cameras. Try again. "You need a lot more than "Emperor Brandioch says you go to jail... but you, you're cute.. you can go". " Again, the differentiator is INTENT, which you claim to be unable to understand. Your problem, not mine. "Which is what "intent" boils down to - its a VERY thorny issue to try and prove." Again, you do not understand INTENT and are unable to define it. Your problem, not mine. Intent can be shown in cases where we're talking about death. But you seem to think it is totally arbitrary. Again, your problem. Not mine. "And the easiest to claim (or be prosecuted for) misunderstanding." Again, that is why we have lawyers and juries and judges and so on and so forth. "Its not a yes/no question." That was my point. The answer will vary accourding to the circumstances. So why do you have a problem with such a NON-LETHAL activity also varying accourding to the circumstances. "Not unless you have taken precautions to ensure that no one will get hurt." Replace "will get hurt" with "else will be photographed". See? This isn't hard. "If in self defense, that no one other than the target will get hurt (subject to florida law, and I think DW has an exception to prevent guns, so its even thornier)." Why do I get the feeling that you're going to tangent off soon? Anyway, again, as long as you only photograph your target. But DW has provisions for photographing their personel and costumed characters (allowed). "If you shoot someone in fully justified self defense - and that round overpenetrates and kills SOMEONE ELSE (or wounds them) - you are again back on the hook for liability." Depends upon the state you're in. If someone is committing a felony, then any damage that occures in preventing such action is chargable against the person who originally instigated the action. There wouldn't have been any collateral damage if they hadn't tried to commit a felony. Again, as long as you can keep your camera focused, the issue will not come up. "Oops." Yep. Remember, we're talking about cameras here. And shooting them. "Nope. Darker than mud." Really? Yet you've just given me a few examples about ensuring that ONLY YOUR TARGET is hit (or that people who are not your target are NOT HIT). But you can't see how this applies to photographing people? Simple, take precautions so that only the people you intend to photograph are photographed. And that people you do NOT intend to photograph are NOT PHOTOGRAPHED. "And the VERY simple rebuttal to that is that I can't go shooting a gun on the city streets (even if I'm sure not to hit anybody, and not damage any property). But I can take photos rather indiscriminately." sigh Aw, why the fuck not? I'll go through that AGAIN! China, you do NOT have the right of free speech. Does this mean that you do not have that right? Or that it is not recognized by the government? In the US, I can say things that would have me arrested in China. Are rights inherent in the INDIVIDUAL? -OR- Are rights granted by the GOVERNMENT? Which was what our other thread boiled down to. Freedom vs Fascism. And I know what side I'm on. "I can walk downtown, and take pictures all day, and if you want to illustrate a difference, its up to you." I can exercise my freedom of speech all day, downtown and be perfectly legal. But I cannot do such in China. Are the rights granted by the government or are they inherent in the individual? "You're just making an argument by authority. It doesn't become you. :)" The authorities, at one time, said that it was okay for me to own slaves. I had the right to own slaves. Did I have that right? If not, how was it that such "rights" were exercised?
Post #4,683 by addison 8/11/01 9:49:44 PM Reply	Yes. Your qualifier is still, a strawman. I specifically noted that one action had LETHAL consequences and the other DID NOT. And most people would note that that's a big difference. In fact, the main reason for many differences. Linda Tripp, for instance, was accused of breaking wiretapping statutes. She didn't face the death penalty. Because there's a difference between lethal and nonlethal. But you don't see how that applies to taking care when shooting a camera. Why is that? And don't tell me it's about deadly force. I've already explained that I understand that. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means". You say you understand. But its just that. You saying that. So I ask you how do you know. You don't bother with that, you have omniscient knowledge of what everyone else does. How, I don't know. You say "What is the intent". Well, hell, I don't know what your intent is. I don't presume to. But YOUR law REQUIRES that we know it. Hrm. Well, let me know how you do it. Now, if you will look at the POTENTIAL DAMAGE you will understand why there is a difference. Waving a gun around is just one trigger squeze from KILLING SOMEONE. Waving your fists around requires proximity to the other person. So there is a difference? I thought there wasn't? You replied: "I don't know, was it? Is You replied: "I don't know, was it? Is it illegal? Nope, not me. Was an accident." Which is why we have courts and juries and judges and lawyers. Just like in "accidental" shooting cases. I asked: "Are you taping me or your family? What is the intent?" You replied: "Intent? I don't know - you're the one arresting me, what WAS my intent? You're the one trying to prosecute me, what WAS my intent? Of course my INTENT was NEVER to capture you spray painting those ATM cameras." Again, we already have proceedures setup to handle situations similar to this, but with DEATH. Why do you suppose it would be so hard to handle in NON-LETHAL cases? it illegal? Nope, not me. Was an accident." Which is why we have courts and juries and judges and lawyers. Just like in "accidental" shooting cases. 1) There aren't thousands of accidental shootings daily. 2) And shootings are by definition dangerous - so when you do something dangerous, the intent can attempted to be judged. You're talking about capturing public images - and you're drawing some arbitrary line on intent. Its your job to figure this out. How to make it workable. Its your solution, and currently, unworkable. I asked: "Are you taping me or your family? What is the intent?" You replied: "Intent? I don't know - you're the one arresting me, what WAS my intent? You're the one trying to prosecute me, what WAS my intent? Of course my INTENT was NEVER to capture you spray painting those ATM cameras." Again, we already have proceedures setup to handle situations similar to this, but with DEATH. Why do you suppose it would be so hard to handle in NON-LETHAL cases? Because thousands are pictures are taken. Because you're drawing a line about capturing some images as legal, and some as illegal. For daily events. And you're going to start tossing all the parents with cameras at DisneyWorld in jail. Until you can prove their intent. And.. I have a problem with understanding? Addison
Post #4,739 by Brandioch 8/12/01 12:05:07 PM Reply	You don't know what "strawman" means. "Strawman" is when you claim I hold a position I haven't stated and then attack that position. Such as when you said I wanted to outlaw camera ownership. I don't know what you THINK it means, but me saying that there are parallels between taking care what you shoot with a camera and taking care of what you shoot with a gun (also specifically noting that the gun is lethal and the camera is not), is not a "strawman" by any definition I am familiar with. Feel free to post your definition. "So there is a difference? I thought there wasn't?" Again, this is an example of a "strawman". I have specifically noted that there is a difference in lethal degrees between a gun and a cameral. Because you don't want to admit this, you claim that I haven't said this. You are attacking a position that you have made up so you don't have to face my position. "Strawman". "1) There aren't thousands of accidental shootings daily." You are right. "2) And shootings are by definition dangerous - so when you do something dangerous, the intent can attempted to be judged." The second part of that statement does not follow from the first part of that statement. Even when you don't do something dangerous, the intent can still be an attempt to judge the intent. Case in point, the MS trial. Intent was a BG part of that trial. But no one is saying that MS killed anyone. "You're talking about capturing public images - and you're drawing some arbitrary line on intent. " As I said before, the same "arbitrary line" exists in cases of fatal shootings. Yet the courts seem to handle it most of the time. "Its your job to figure this out. How to make it workable. Its your solution, and currently, unworkable." That's what you claim. But the parallel situation (shooting deaths) seems to be working well enough for society. Even though it involves a shooting death. Why do you think it would be harder to show intent in a rights violation than in a shooting case? "Because thousands are pictures are taken. Because you're drawing a line about capturing some images as legal, and some as illegal. For daily events." And, every day, thousands of rounds are fired. Yet we seem to be able to handle the occasional fatality. "And you're going to start tossing all the parents with cameras at DisneyWorld in jail." Strawman. "And.. I have a problem with understanding?" Yes. Specifically, you have a problem understanding the definition of "strawman".
Post #4,745 by addison 8/12/01 12:53:52 PM Reply	I understand the implications and ramifications of what you're saying ought to be the law. Which you obviously don't. "And you're going to start tossing all the parents with cameras at DisneyWorld in jail." Strawman. Um, no, that's exactly what you've advocated. If someone catches anyone else on film intentionally, then that's illegal, and an invasion of their privacy - despite the fact they're in public. If its accidental, then its OK. So if someone is at Disneyworld, and takes a picture, then according to you - this person is now liable to be imprisioned, tried, and have to prove (or resist the prosecution proving) their intent. Now, I'll even help you out just a tad bit. See, what you're proposing actually HAS a precedent. If there's something top secret, national security, say, a new jet fighter - and I take a picture to sell to a foreign government, or the National Inquirer - then I can be arrested.. Not for the picture, per se, but for the intent. But if its accidental, well, the Feds will likely be content with trashing my house and taking all my video equipment in violation of the 4th amendment. THAT'S what I've been waiting on you to actually rebut with. Now, the difference there - if the top secret whatever is IN PUBLIC VIEW, then the government has a much harder time doing anything about it. Which is why Area 51, etc., exist. To keep people away. Nothing prevents me from taking pictures of F-16s at the Air Force Base - or a picture of a submarine sailing out of the bay, under a bridge - UNLESS its to amass some data, sell to oh, say, the Iraqi's. But its not the picture that's at issue, its the intent... as you were saying. But you're proposing is that the ACTION (Which isn't illegal) is grounds for legal action. Millions of pictures taken each day. And if someone is captured in the frame - in a public place - illegal. This is a far cry from the number of people shot per day, and back on a par with the number of espionage agents at work. Of course, the biggest problem, is you're trying to define privacy in a new way. You proposed this new criteria - I'm pointing out to you how ripe for abuse IT is.... You can't just tell me that its a strawman, because it is what you are proposing. Parents at Disney World not able to freely take pictures of their kids - because they MIGHT get somebody else. Or they MIGHT be actually photographing that stacked blonde behind their kids....... I keep asking you HOW do you deal with that, millions of times per day? (Even leaving aside your redefinition of privacy). How? Saying we can do it for guns doesn't work. Guns ~= espionage. That we can handle. So how do you POSSIBLY - without just flat outlawing cameras - do what YOU are proposing on a REALISTIC BASIS? Addison
Post #4,752 by Brandioch 8/12/01 2:41:00 PM Reply	Once again, legal vs "right". "But you're proposing is that the ACTION (Which isn't illegal) is grounds for legal action." I thought we had established this already. I guess not. Okay, I'll go back over it again. Back a few years, it was legal for me to own slaves. Was this "right"? Not "was this legal'. Was this "right"? Does "legality" defing "right"?
Post #4,758 by pwhysall 8/12/01 4:51:56 PM Reply	You have a choice. Either take action, or don't take action. If you take direct action and your local legislature fails to see the righteousness of your efforts, expect to go to jail or face whatever penalties exist. Alternatively you could write to your congressman or senator. But this whole "right" vs. "legal" thing is forever doomed to go around in circles and you and Addison damn well know it. Of course, if you want to pick and choose which laws are convenient for you to obey, you're more than welcome to go buy an island and become your own government. We have a word for people who pick and choose the laws they'd like to obey. It's "Criminal". -- Peter Shill For Hire
Post #4,775 by Brandioch 8/12/01 7:22:31 PM Reply	Also "Hero". "We have a word for people who pick and choose the laws they'd like to obey. It's "Criminal"." Those people are also called "heros" by future generations. If I were to help a slave escape, I could be "legally" shot in the commision of that "crime". I would be a "criminal". Later, once society's laws shifted to match my morals, I would be a "hero". Which was the point I was making. Does the law define what is "right"? Why/why not?
Post #4,777 by pwhysall 8/12/01 8:03:33 PM Reply	Apples and Oranges It is facile to compare the ownership of one human being by another with the diaphanous "right" to be anonymous in public. If you're going to be a hero, you'd better be damn sure of your ground. And you'd also better resign yourself to going to jail or worse. Breaking the law makes you a criminal, whether you like the law in question or not. But in the 21st century we have a process for changing those laws we find sucky. It's long, tedious and hard, but it's there. So use it. Don't be a criminal. Be a citizen. And if after all that you still don't like it, then you're free to go and live somewhere else. -- Peter Shill For Hire
Post #4,790 by imric 8/12/01 9:21:47 PM Reply	'Struth. If you're going to be a hero, you'd better be damn sure of your ground. And you'd also better resign yourself to going to jail or worse. True. Sacrifice is traditionally part of being a hero, no? But in the 21st century we have a process for changing those laws we find sucky. It's long, tedious and hard, but it's there. Heh. That same process was in place in the US during the time of slavery; does this make those who ran the Underground Railroad criminals in the eyes of history? It is facile to compare the ownership of one human being by another with the diaphanous "right" to be anonymous in public. Is it? I think that that depends on how strongly one believes in anonymity, and privacy. I believe that privacy and anonymity are ENORMOUS issues given the communications technology we have today - given the technologies involved, the social issues may indeed grow to be as large to the human race as slavery. I'm prepared to use the political system as much as possible, but I have no illusions as to the effectiveness of my own efforts in the face of those with true power; those that can influence the media AND have immediate/intimate access and influence over lawmakers. I suppose the 'Net can provide some voice to the people now; but watch as the web-publishing options for the private citizen are restricted in order to cut down on 'piracy', 'child pornography', and 'viruses'. Even micro-payment schemes can kill a lot of private publishing. If a lot of people read your work, you could be ruined financially, if you are a private citizen. My point? There are many ways that political/corporate efforts can stop efforts to retain individual freedoms that the 'powers that be' find inconvenient - even within the framework we have for changing laws in our society. There ARE times when illegal action is justified by history. One must be prepared for the consequences, however. And if after all that you still don't like it, then you're free to go and live somewhere else. Uh-huh. Interesting assertion. Where? Where is there a place where privacy and anonymity is a given right that cannot be revoked (except under certain extenuating circumstances, like specific legal investigations)? Mars? THERE ARE NO MORE FRONTIERS ON EARTH. EVERYPLACE HAS BEEN CLAIMED. WE CAN NO LONGER 'ROLL OUR OWN'. Everywhere you go, you will be a subject of a government, and it's laws - so THIS assertion is indeed 'facile'. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #4,793 by Ashton 8/12/01 9:45:09 PM Reply	1984 ___ Brave New World For those possessing little imagination about this apparently ephemeral idea, including but not limited to: yes, a certain 'privacy even in public' - which is reasonably described as anonymity: I suggest rereading the above, for just two authors' much less-ephemeral conception of.. the consequences of our undervaluing this idea, of deeming it less valuable than er "other freedoms". I'm with Orwell and Huxley and locally - Imric, Brandioch and er Me. See the rest of ya on the barricades, while the cops, Corps., military Corps - file us all away in their databases. You do know about databases? Ashton Tom Paine
Post #4,827 by Brandioch 8/13/01 1:10:13 AM Reply	That was covered in the other thread, also. Yep, break the law, go to jail. Even if the law is a "wrong" law. Even if you will be judged as a "hero" by future generations. In the here and now, you're breaking the law and will be punished by the authorities. I've got it easy. I'll just get jail time or a fine. Other people were killed for their actions. I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question. Is "legal" the same as "right"? I'm going to guess that anyone who disagrees with me will not answer that question. I'll go even further and postulate that this is because "criminals" are "bad people" in our society. "Bad people" do "bad thiings". Therefore, if you are a "criminal", that is because what you did was a "bad thing". Even if the "bad thing" is freeing someone from the bonds of slavery. Freeing them is "bad" which means that allowing them to suffer is "good". Mental collapse is noted at this point when the subject attempts to reconcile "bad" == "good". Subject will exhibit avoidance behaviour and repeat variations of "legal" theme. Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither (paraphrased, of course). Freedom is not given. Freedom must be fought for and won every day. (again, paraphrased)
Post #4,829 by pwhysall 8/13/01 2:56:57 AM Reply	Perhaps. Sometimes, "legal" does equate to "right". In fact, that's the case be most of the time. Otherwise we'd have ourselves a revolution - well, we would if we could be bothered to drag our overweight carcasses off the sofa and onto the streets. I personally think that any revolution in the USA or UK today would involve a lot of people going, "It's so unfair" on daytime TV talk shows. But that's a whole different rant :-) Now, there are BAD LAWS passed. I'm never going to argue that every bit of legislation that hits the statute books is the paragon of the legislator's craft, and I think you know that. My point is I believe that the way we combat bad law is by a civilised process involving duly elected representatives and large amounts of paper. If you take unilateral action you're depriving other people of their right to disagree with you. Someone else wants the camera in the park? Too late, the camera is already destroyed. You're pushing the debate into places that don't help YOUR argument because now your actions are of questionable "rightness" and even more questionable "legality". Am I making sense? -- Peter Shill For Hire
Post #4,875 by Brandioch 8/13/01 1:53:33 PM Reply	Yep. "Am I making sense?" Yep. "Sometimes, "legal" does equate to "right". In fact, that's the case be most of the time." Yep. Most of the time. On the other hand, there are continual attempts to errode our personal freedoms. Remember, authority tends to want to propogate itself. "Otherwise we'd have ourselves a revolution....." I also think it is unlikely. But not just for your reason. Things will have to get VERY bad before we do anything. We're too fat and happy right now. We have all the salty, greasy, sugary food we can stuff into our maws, warm houses, and drugs to take our minds off of the emptyness of it all. "My point is I believe that the way we combat bad law is by a civilised process involving duly elected representatives and large amounts of paper." That's a good way. On the other hand, I don't think it goes far enough. In most situations, it would be fine. But I reserve the right to oppose any law I deem "wrong" in any way I feel is "right". "If you take unilateral action you're depriving other people of their right to disagree with you." They can still disagree. But, while we are disagree'ing, they cannot impose their views upon me. "Someone else wants the camera in the park? Too late, the camera is already destroyed." Yep. I think it's "safer" to err on the side of increased rights than to err on the side of diminished rights. It doesn't take a revolution to lose your rights, but it usually takes a revolution to regain them.
Post #4,882 by imric 8/13/01 2:21:33 PM Reply	Well said! "It doesn't take a revolution to lose your rights, but it usually takes a revolution to regain them." Nice! Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #4,884 by addison 8/13/01 2:28:37 PM Reply	Is it? Lest you forget - that's the rationale adopted by the people killing/bombing abortion clinics and doctors. "It might not be legal, but its RIGHT" Addison
Post #4,893 by imric 8/13/01 3:26:17 PM Reply	So? It was illegal for the US itself to separate from England. I guess the abortion-clinic bombers make that act immoral. The Underground Railroad was illegal. Ditto. How many civil-rights marches were illegal assemblies (no 'license')? I guess they weren't morally right because other rioters 'assembled' without getting a permit, first. ... Sorry. You are tarring with too wide a brush. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #4,903 by addison 8/13/01 3:58:36 PM Reply	Nope. Sorry. You are tarring with too wide a brush. How so? Its exactly on point. Those people - have the same zeal and zest that Brandioch is championing. Nevermind the law, if you consider it to be wrong, then do what you feel you must. Which is exactly what the abortion bombers/doctor stalkers think. Exactly. You might not LIKE IT, but no, its not too wide a brush.... Its the exact same thought process. I just thought I'd illustrate a side of the argument that most people won't like. Just as Brandioch is using the "Underground Railroad" (which, side note, didn't "preserve or defend freedom" (for everybody), but just helped some escape. (And the law was changed, you might note, before any real change was evident) (And a hell of a lot of blood shed, but that's a tangent). But yes - those bombers/stalkers/slayers believe they are operating for the greater good.... so the law doesn't apply. Exactly the same. Addison
Post #4,942 by Brandioch 8/13/01 7:21:35 PM Reply	Nope, you're wrong. Actually, you're right, but I just wanted to get your attention. The same rational applies to terrorists and camera painters. I will support their freedom to make their own decisions -BUT- I will also support the jails where they will spend the rest of their lives. Freedom isn't free. Rights come with responsibilities. Otherwise, it is tyranny.
Post #4,946 by imric 8/13/01 7:47:16 PM Reply	Fair enough. But what was that statement I agreed to in the first place? Oh, yeah... It doesn't take a revolution to lose your rights, but it usually takes a revolution to regain them. Aren't those abortion-clinic bombers fighting to remove rights? Weren't the causes I mentioned focussed on preserving or ensuring them? Perhaps that's why your example was so distasteful (of course, chosen for the distaste it would evoke), eh? Maybe those abortion-clinic bombers will be hailed as heroes in the future, or the majority of US citizens will support thier actions - in which case they will be praised for the courage of thier convictions (though I doubt it - I could be wrong), just as maybe those that don't want the authorities to watch thier every move, using computers to sift through thier actions in the search of any possible violations of legal code might be considered to be dangerous psychos - but I don't think that will be the case, either. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #4,948 by Fearless Freep 8/13/01 7:58:41 PM Reply	From their point of view Aren't those abortion-clinic bombers fighting to remove rights? From their point of view, they are fighting to defend and protect the rights of those who are unable to defend themselves. The 'rights' of those who are defenseless and have no choice and end up dead are worth more than the the rights of those who do have a choice. You may not agree with their argument, but they are fighting for rights as they see it Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #4,954 by addison 8/13/01 9:01:08 PM Reply	Its all in the Point Of View. Aren't those abortion-clinic bombers fighting to remove rights? They don't think so. They think they're fighting to preserve rights. (Remember, they don't agree with the "right to abort a fetus"). Same with the camera issue. Brandioch wants to take away my right to observe him in public. Remember the "Fair Use" arguments? The ability to take what is in the public view? That's a right. So its down to a point of view. Its not really about "security", IMO, BTW. But about the "rights" that I have to public images. Perhaps that's why your example was so distasteful (of course, chosen for the distaste it would evoke), eh? Nope, because it was a perfect example of what happens when you get people who have diametrically opposed ideas of what "rights" are - and think they are above the law, or don't have to obey it. just as maybe those that don't want the authorities to watch thier every move You forgot the critical modifier. Their every public move. Addison
Post #4,956 by Ashton 8/13/01 9:10:34 PM Reply	And you repeatedly use the idea of 'public' as if there were no distinction between human observation (by anyone of, anyone else standing about) - and the use of technology to create records of random persons, places, times -- and accumulate, classify mine, and otherwise assort these: Precisely as is meant by the word dossier. Phrase it anyway you like, but the word 'public' is neither precise enough to convey the category, nor wide enough to include the implications. A.
Post #5,048 by Brandioch 8/14/01 12:31:34 PM Reply	Nope. My image is not public. Even when I am in public. My image is my own. I reserve all rights to my image. You can look at me. You cannot photograph me. You cannot film me.
Post #5,049 by boxley 8/14/01 12:35:34 PM Reply	look at the gov of Minnesota you dont see his face in the tabloids, do you know why? He owns the rights to his face and has sued anyone who tried to make a dime off of his features. The secret is that he trademarked his features while a rassler. So I am also thinking of tm ing my self so these kinds of things wont happen to me. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #5,052 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 12:41:29 PM Reply	Does that protect against photos or just publication? Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,057 by boxley 8/14/01 12:58:48 PM Reply	publication Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #5,062 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 1:10:15 PM Reply	So he's trademarked the use of his image... ...but not his image itself. Anyone can take his picture; publication is problematic Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,198 by boxley 8/14/01 9:04:42 PM Reply	yup thats my point, take my picture but if you use it for any purpose other than in your own home. Its gonna cost. Recog software is using it it for a cause not private. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #5,051 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 12:39:54 PM Reply	Nope Happens all the time. I went to the Ballon Fiesta a few years back and took pictures of my family, and about a hundred other people accidentally in the background. I did a gig a few weeks back and the singers husband took our pictures, as well as most of the people in the audience If you 'owned the right to your image' and no one could photograph you, then tabloids would be out of business because photographing celebrities would be illegal Your shrill insistance doesn't change reality, sorry to say Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,089 by Brandioch 8/14/01 2:47:14 PM Reply	"Happens all the time." Yep. And if you lived a while back in the southern states, slavery happened all the time. Does the frequency matter? "I did a gig a few weeks back and the singers husband took our pictures, as well as most of the people in the audience" Let me guess, "did a gig" means the same a "put on a show". "If you 'owned the right to your image' and no one could photograph you, then tabloids would be out of business because photographing celebrities would be illegal" Gee, I guess if someone goes out of business, then it isn't right. So, commerce defines "right" and "wrong"? Care to try again?
Post #5,097 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 2:55:06 PM Reply	Oh c'mon!!!! That was the most unrelated post I've seen yet. Yep. And if you lived a while back in the southern states, slavery happened all the time. Does the frequency matter? Perhaps I need to spell it out slowly. The missing word is that it happens legally all the time and also if you bother reading [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5064\|clarification] you would realize I'm only pointing out what is legally allowable, not what is morally correct "If you 'owned the right to your image' and no one could photograph you, then tabloids would be out of business because photographing celebrities would be illegal" Gee, I guess if someone goes out of business, then it isn't right. No, but the fact that they are still in business means they have a legal right to do what they are doing, even if you diagree with the moral right So, commerce defines "right" and "wrong"? No, and that's so far afield from what I said that I'm wondering if your are even seriously thinking or just knee-jerk ranting Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,117 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:26:12 PM Reply	I gotta get back in time! "Perhaps I need to spell it out slowly. The missing word is that it happens legally all the time and also if you bother reading clarification you would realize I'm only pointing out what is legally allowable, not what is morally correct" Which was the point of my slavery post. Of all the slavery posts I've made in this thread. All of them. There were more than one. In fact, there's even a question attached to them. Is "legal" the definition of "right"? You see, "legal" changes over time. That must be another post (plural) that you missed. What WAS "legal" is NOW "illegal". So, what I'm saying is that something that is NOW "legal" should BE "illegal" in the FUTURE. past/present/future legal/illegal right/wrong But for some reason, the concept of change over time is incomprensible to some people.. Once again, we are not talking about rights that our government has recognized TODAY. (for some reason, I feel that I will be posting that statement again in the near future)
Post #5,123 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:36:24 PM Reply	Ya gotta read the posts Is "legal" the definition of "right"? Nope, and I made that point clear [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5064\|here] and alluded to it [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5053\|here] There is a differnce between a legal "right" and what is 'right'; I've been saying that all morning Once again, we are not talking about rights that our government has recognized TODAY. Until it is recognized by the government, it may be morally 'right' in your eyes, but it is not a "right" that you possess. Unless you elevate what you think is right to the status of a "right", than it's not something you can use with present tense possesive verb because it has no meaning Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,170 by Brandioch 8/14/01 5:12:25 PM Reply	More philosophy for you to consider. "Until it is recognized by the government, it may be morally 'right' in your eyes, but it is not a "right" that you possess." Semantics. I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual. Not that they are granted by the government. All the government can do is legalize or illegalize the expression of those rights. What you are experiencing is one of the reasons I don't agree with your logic. If "rights" are defined by the government, then individuals have no rights that aren't granted by the government. But the government is composed of the individuals it governs. So the rights are legalized by the individuals seeking those rights. In other words, the rights are inherent in the individual. But only if that individual has the authority to enforce that decision. In other words: Might makes right. For your other statement: "Unless you elevate what you think is right to the status of a "right", than it's not something you can use with present tense possesive verb because it has no meaning" Of course it does. Unless you NEVER change your mind.
Post #5,176 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 5:44:37 PM Reply	Give that man a cookie I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual. No kidding, but you've never said why. I said as much quite awhile ago. Not that they are granted by the government. And my only point has been, from a practical application point of view, it doesn't matter All the government can do is legalize or illegalize the expression of those rights. Thank you for finally realizing it. That's why it doesn't matter If "rights" are defined by the government, then individuals have no rights that aren't granted by the government. A gross distortion of my point, but oh well... But the government is composed of the individuals it governs. So the rights are legalized by the individuals seeking those rights. Ahh...but now you are considering only a small sample. That's an ideal world where you have a circle between the governed and the governing so that the moral beliefs of the people and the legal rights of the people are in congruence. What happens in a totalitarian state, or an anarchy dominated by gangs, where the government is not composed of those being governed. There are some many types of social structures, including forms of government, where that simple circle simply doesn't work, so what happens to a person's moral rights then? "Unless you elevate what you think is right to the status of a "right", than it's not something you can use with present tense possesive verb because it has no meaning" Of course it does. Unless you NEVER change your mind. OK, I'll try with more explicit phrasing Unless you take the time to go through the process of turning what you think is a moral right into a legally recognized right it doesn't matter whether you think you have that particular right or not because you will not be given the opportunity to exercise that right Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,185 by Brandioch 8/14/01 6:19:09 PM Reply	And why do you think I would NOT do that? "Unless you take the time to go through the process of turning what you think is a moral right into a legally recognized right it doesn't matter whether you think you have that particular right or not because you will not be given the opportunity to exercise that right" Again, they can't stop me from expressing my rights. They can only punish me after I do so. But, anyway. Why are you implying that I wouldn't ALSO work to change the law? Again, from the beginning I've said that I don't see any reason why I should follow a law I don't agree with. (subject to being able to deal with the jail time/fine/whatever). But I've never said that I wouldn't ALSO work to change the law.
Post #5,098 by addison 8/14/01 2:57:06 PM Reply	In other words, your stance is unsupported by facts. Does the frequency matter? Sometimes, yes. Gee, I guess if someone goes out of business, then it isn't right. Nope. But you don't see many people pursuing cases. For a situation where there is a "god-given right", that seems awful strange. They sure do sue in a hurry for libel/slander. And for invasion of privacy, if it occurs. So why, if you're right, aren't there gazillions of cases to back you up? Care to try again? Addison
Post #5,121 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:32:35 PM Reply	I should have been more clear. I asked: "Does the frequency matter?" You replied: "Sometimes, yes." I should have asked: "Why, in this particular discussion, would the frequency matter." Then you ask: "So why, if you're right, aren't there gazillions of cases to back you up?" Because this is a NEW CONCEPT? The technology has progressed to a point where this type of invasion is now possible. For slander/libel all you needed was a means of communication. We've had that for 3000 years.
Post #5,076 by pwhysall 8/14/01 2:18:03 PM Reply	Come now "My image is not public. Even when I am in public." That's clearly bollocks, because taken to its logical conclusion, you'd have the right to say who can and cannot look at you. -- Peter Shill For Hire
Post #5,092 by Brandioch 8/14/01 2:49:58 PM Reply	Where do you see that? "That's clearly bollocks, because taken to its logical conclusion, you'd have the right to say who can and cannot look at you." Really? Strangely enough, as has been noted, there is a certain individual in the US who has trademarked his features. Yet people still look at him. But they cannot publish any images of him. What I'm saying is that you cannot record any images of me without my permission.
Post #5,095 by addison 8/14/01 2:53:39 PM Reply	Re: Where do you see that? Yet people still look at him. Yep. And they take photographs - I've seen lots of them. Never met the man, but I've seen enough I could recognize him. What you're saying is that you own your image - and can decide who and what gets to view you. And that people can look at you - either because you're letting them - or you can't stop them. Are you sure you don't want to think about that? So if I set a camera up, with lethal protection, THAT'S OK, because you can't "do anything about it?" Can't have it both ways. Addison
Post #5,102 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:02:22 PM Reply	complete the thought Yet people still look at him. But they cannot publish any images of him. What I'm saying is that you cannot record any images of me without my permission. But they can still record images of him, and use them in uses other than publishing... ...and you as well Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,107 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:13:45 PM Reply	You're almost there. Now, not because I don't feel that you've read my postings, nor that you're of limited mental capacity.... But just because I have some inborn need to do this......... Allow me to repeat myself........ The current law does not cover the rights I'm talking about. Hmmmmmm, maybe I didn't phrase that clearly enough....... May I try again? The laws we have TODAY are not addressing the right under discussion. "But they can still record images of him, and use them in uses other than publishing..." Hmmmmm, am I correct in interpreting "can still" as having something to do with our current laws? But I've already stated that our current laws don't cover this situation. But you're talking about our current laws. But the current laws weren't always the laws of the land. In the past, slavery was legal. Was it right? Does legality define "right"? Something that was "legal" in the past is not "right" now. So, theoretically, something that is "legal" now may not be "right" in the future. Past Present Future The concept has been known to crush the weaker minds amongst us. Care to answer the question of whether "legal" is "right"? For some reason, I don't think you will. Prove me wrong. I dare you.
Post #5,115 by addison 8/14/01 3:18:30 PM Reply	Funny. The current law does not cover the rights I'm talking about. Hmmmmmm, maybe I didn't phrase that clearly enough....... Funny. Jay's not the one talking in absolutes, moral rights, and that he "owns" things the law doesn't recognise. About being able to prevent people from doing what is legal and right. ....Or are you finally seeing what I've been trying to get across to you for weeks and are trying to back off now? :) Addison
Post #5,122 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:35:30 PM Reply	ROTFLMAO "About being able to prevent people from doing what is legal and right." Finally. "Legal" == "right" /me bows
Post #5,128 by addison 8/14/01 3:44:38 PM Reply	I think you hit your head. Hell, I know you did. How else could you try and claim credit for a discussion where you're talking about a potential future, but use present tense, and think you made a point? Legal doesn't always equal right. If you think you want to take some credit for that remark, fine, have at it. But you've said that legal doesn't bother you, its only what you think matters - and stated that that's the CURRENT state of affairs. Because your credit is so far into the negative column with this, that that little bit doesn't even begin to get you out. Addison
Post #5,119 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:29:06 PM Reply	Bingo!!! The current law does not cover the rights I'm talking about. Now read [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5053\| the problem] Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,124 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:38:03 PM Reply	Thank you. "...rights are only held as they are granted by law. You could advocate changing the law to grant or recognize those rights, but that doesn't mean you have those rights currently" And another vote for: "legal" == "right" /me takes another bow
Post #5,134 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:51:17 PM Reply	Try again Read the second post after were I clarify what I meant If you are of the philisohical bent that rights exist as some basic human quality outside or above law, that's fine. My religious beliefs give me the same conclusion "However", from any practical standpoint, rights are only meaningful if they are recognized and respected by the community around you and that recognition and respect are expressed in law. Or in authority that uses force to supercede community will. It doesn't matter what rights you claim, if they are not recognized and respected by those with the power to ignore them, then they are meaningless You are conusing "right" as a noun and "right" as an adjective See [link\|http://www.m-w.com\|Merriam Webster] The noun "right" is 1 qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval 2 something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled the property interest possessed under law* or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>* 3 : something that one may properly claim as due emphasis mine The adjective "right" is 1 : RIGHTEOUS, UPRIGHT 2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct> so..."legal"=="right(n)" is true if you mean a person is given rights through legal means "legal" == "right(a)" is false if you mean that something in righteous because it is legal and unrighteous because it is not And again, I pointed out that distinction before you posted Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,169 by Brandioch 8/14/01 5:04:50 PM Reply	You didn't read my posts. You see, I don't distinguish between "right" and "right". Which is the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT THAT I'VE BEEN MAKING THIS ENTIRE THREAD. Feel free to have missed that. However you managed to do that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let me break it down for you in nice, easily digestible chunks. #1. Rights are inherent in the individual. #2. That means they are not granted nor revoked by government. #3. All government can do is to facilitate or punish the expression of those rights. #4. Exercising a right that the government does not agree with does make you a "criminal" in relation to that government. #5. Criminals are punished in accourdance with the laws of that government. (This gets back to #3). #6. What rights a government deems are "legal" changes over time. And the summation: I don't always agree with what the government thinks is a right and I am not constrained to following its orders.
Post #5,173 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 5:24:25 PM Reply	And again reread You see, I don't distinguish between "right" and "right". Problem is that reality, not to mention the dictionary, disagree with you I'm a Christian who thinks abortion is nothing short of murder living in a country where it is a legal right. You think I don't see a huge gulf between what is a legal right and what is morally right? #1. Rights are inherent in the individual. #2. That means they are not granted nor revoked by government. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter where those rights derive from, they are only useable if you have the power to do so. That means that anyone with the power to stop you from exercising your rights has to respect your rights, otherwise they will keep you from exercising them and therefore having them doesn't mean anything. You don't really "have" them, all you do is "want" them, you yearn for them, but do not possess them If you want to have those rights, you have to be willing to fight for them, within the legal system, or without, but you don't just have them in any meaningful way until you can use them Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,175 by Brandioch 8/14/01 5:39:46 PM Reply	Try it with comprehension this time. "Problem is that reality, not to mention the dictionary, disagree with you" That would depend upon the dictionary. There is also something called "context". "I'm a Christian who thinks abortion is nothing short of murder living in a country where it is a legal right. " And I'm very happy for you. "You think I don't see a huge gulf between what is a legal right and what is morally right?" No. What is in evidence is that YOU do not understand that I understand that. What is further in evidence is that you do NOT understand that I don't see any reason that moral and legal should not match. Why don't you try working on that? "It doesn't matter where those rights derive from, they are only useable if you have the power to do so." In other words: Might makes right. "You don't really "have" them, all you do is "want" them, you yearn for them, but do not possess them" No, I possess those rights. All that can be done by the government is to punish me for expressing them. We seem to be hung up on this point. I've already stated my position: "legal" != "right" You seem to be arguing that: "legal" == "right" Whether legal, moral or whatever "right". I don't agree. And I've stated that over and over again. Rights are inherent in the individual. In the individual. Not granted by the government. All the government can do is faciliate or punish the expression of those rights. "If you want to have those rights, you have to be willing to fight for them, within the legal system, or without, but you don't just have them in any meaningful way until you can use them" Hmmmm, and painting cameras that are set to photograph me would be or would not be fighting for those rights?
Post #5,179 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 6:03:07 PM Reply	sheesh No. What is in evidence is that YOU do not understand that I understand that. Because you said You see, I don't distinguish between "right" and "right". What is further in evidence is that you do NOT understand that I don't see any reason that moral and legal should not match. I understand that, but that assumes a perfect harmony between legal state and moral belief and we're not there and not going to get there without a lot of work but you keep using verb tenses that indicate we are there and then protesting the universe is outta whack. The severe problem is that the word "right" can mean such an ambigous set of ideas that you have to define the terms for what you are saying before you can say it I've already stated my position: "legal" != "right" You seem to be arguing that: "legal" == "right sigh read this again [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5134\|here] "legal"=="right(" is true if you mean a person is given rights through legal means "legal" == "right" is false if you mean that something in righteous because it is legal and unrighteous because it is not (and the first is almost a tautaology> I'm not syaing "legal==right" or "legal != right", I'm saying it depends on what you mean by "right" Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,187 by Brandioch 8/14/01 6:24:30 PM Reply	Context. "I'm not syaing "legal==right" or "legal != right", I'm saying it depends on what you mean by "right"" Which is where CONTEXT comes into the picture. Such as when I say that my rights are INHERENT and CANNOT be taken by the government. I'm going to stop now. From your other posts, it seems that you were NOT arguing whether I have the ability to express my views via civil disobedience. You were just confused by my use of the word "right" -and- That I did not ALSO specify that I would seek to change the laws. Is that so?
Post #5,079 by addison 8/14/01 2:29:02 PM Reply	Sorry. But now you're fighting physics. Your image - and what you do - in public, is public knowledge. By the very DEFINITION of public. Your image, the reflected radiation from 420-760 nm, isn't "yours". You don't own it. You can protect it - but now when you go somewhere you can't (again, the definition of PUBLIC). You can look at me. You cannot photograph me. You cannot film me. But we can only look at you because you allow it? And if you decide to change your mind? Pray tell, how are you going to prevent people from looking at you, in public? (When you change your mind and decide not to allow people to look at you?) Addison
Post #5,083 by imric 8/14/01 2:40:28 PM Reply	Oh, come ON. He didn't say PEOPLE couldn't look. It is recorded, stored images that are the problem AND what are being discussed, here. Why do you confuse "looking" with recording, storing, and even processing? More and more, I DO see you as advocating monitoring of all citizenry in public. Or is this just "the right room for an argument"? Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #5,091 by addison 8/14/01 2:49:53 PM Reply	No, you come on and read what he did say. He said he had the arbitrary decision on who and what could capture his image. Did he not? That means a camera - or an eyeball. He's taken that as his "right" Go back and read what he said. He "owns" his image, and can decide on a case-by-case basis what he will ALLOW to view the radiation that reflects from him. Why do you confuse "looking" with recording, storing, and even processing? I'm not confused. Because the ISSUE is whether you have any ability to protect your IMAGE in public. Since you don't currently - AND if you want to set them up, you have to denote the DIFFERENCES - that's the entire point! There IS no difference (or if there is, explain it). Currently the discussion is your image, on a city street. Whether its seen by you, a cop, or a camera is irrelevant. That's the issue. Image. Not storage. Not data collection. Because if you CAN'T protect it, then you can't stop the data collection/storage (Without addressing that in new legislation). Image. Brandioch says that HE owns it. Bullshit. More and more, I DO see you as advocating monitoring of all citizenry in public. (thanks for at least not saying that I'm trying to put cameras into homes). Nope. I don't like it. But my point is that the image capturing isn't stoppable by any current law. Nor is the data collection or storage prohibited by any part of the Constitution, or state law. I merely am pointing out the problems with attacking said cameras with some concept that the law will toss out immediately - or with a concept that will render all cameras illegal.. Addison
Post #5,103 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:04:54 PM Reply	Cameras != eyeballs. Nice try. We've been over this in the original thread. No, I cannot stop someone from looking at me. All I can do is to stop them from recording my image. "Because the ISSUE is whether you have any ability to protect your IMAGE in public." Yes. That is the issue. "Since you don't currently - AND if you want to set them up, you have to denote the DIFFERENCES - that's the entire point!" Recordings. Non-human recordings. Like with "cameras". As I've said only about a hundred times in these threads. "There IS no difference (or if there is, explain it). " Simple, the camera can record my image to be displayed to others. You memory cannot. Why is that an important distinction? Let's take one very specific example. Because photographic evidence is LEGAL evidence. Whereas your picture you painted from scenes you witnessed IS NOT! "Currently the discussion is your image, on a city street." True. "Whether its seen by you, a cop, or a camera is irrelevant." Not true. Very not true. The cop can see me. But the cop cannot record my image. "That's the issue." No it is not. This entire discussion has been about CAMERAS. It STARTED with the CAMERAS that were TRACKING SPEEDERS. If you will recall that, I said there was no problem with cops tracking speeders. Only the cameras doing it was the problem. "Image. Not storage. Not data collection." No, the issue is STORAGE. Because your mind CANNOT store data in a format that others can view. Privacy. "Because if you CAN'T protect it, then you can't stop the data collection/storage (Without addressing that in new legislation)." You know, I have hope that ONE DAY you will UNDERSTAND that our CURRENT LAWS do not cover this. Gee, that means we need NEW LEGISLATION. I wonder why I haven't brought that point up yet? Gee, I guess I have. Only about a million times. But you've still managed to miss it. Over and over and over and over again. "Image. Brandioch says that HE owns it." Yes he does. "Bullshit." Cows do too, but they don't get any credit. "But my point is that the image capturing isn't stoppable by any current law." One day. One day. One day, maybe. One day, possibly. Maybe, one day. You will read my previous posts and find that I've already addressed this issue. "Nor is the data collection or storage prohibited by any part of the Constitution, or state law." One day. Maybe. As I've already pointed out. The Constitution didn't have to address this because there weren't efficient means for capturing a person's image. "I merely am pointing out the problems with attacking said cameras with some concept that the law will toss out immediately - or with a concept that will render all cameras illegal.." Again, as I've pointed out. Thousands of rounds of ammunition are fired each day from legally possessed firearms. And there isn't a problem. Oh, that's right. You can't make your point without resorting to this same old strawman. Whatever.
Post #5,106 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:09:46 PM Reply	Actually No, I cannot stop someone from looking at me. All I can do is to stop them from recording my image Currently, legally and technically, you can do neither. Don't like it...change the law... But baring that you should say "I should be able to stop people from recording my image", not "can do" Because photographic evidence is LEGAL evidence. Whereas your picture you painted from scenes you witnessed IS NOT! but my eyewitness testimony is LEGAL evidence Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,125 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:39:27 PM Reply	Already addressed in your previous post. "Currently, legally and technically, you can do neither." Yep. "legal" == "right" Thanks for your participation.
Post #5,140 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:58:38 PM Reply	yawn Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, intentional homonym confusion doen't get you anywhere But just for grins, you say you can stop it. I'm curious how you think you can currently, technically. Otherwise you're just living in a fantasy where what you want to happen has already happened Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,142 by addison 8/14/01 4:01:58 PM Reply	Re: yawn Otherwise you're just living in a fantasy where what you want to happen has already happened That seems to sum up his counters quite concisely. Addison
Post #5,155 by Brandioch 8/14/01 4:31:43 PM Reply	It's called "reading with comprehension". "But just for grins, you say you can stop it. I'm curious how you think you can currently, technically. Otherwise you're just living in a fantasy where what you want to happen has already happened" Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law? Did you? Is it even REMOTELY possible that you missed ALL of my posts where I said that this was not a CURRENT law? Well, if you didn't miss those posts, why is it that you STILL don't understand that I realize it is NOT a CURRENT law? I've SPECIFICALLY stated MULTIPLE times that I REALIZE IT IS NOT A CURRENT LAW. There, I've even done it again. Specifically directed at YOU. Now, for some reason, I have the feeling that you're NOT going to be able to grasp that rather simple statement. I don't believe in Santa Clause. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. I don't believe this is a current law. So. If it is not a CURRENT law, but it is a RIGHT that is inherent in every person, what do we do? Hmmmmmmmmm. What do we do? It seems an impossible situation. How do you handle a current right that is not recognized by the current authority? Well. You've got me stumped there. I really have no idea how to handle that. I guess my position is fatally flawed. I guess I was wrong all along. You two are right.
Post #5,159 by Brandioch 8/14/01 4:35:41 PM Reply	Whoa! Here's a radical thought! I was thinking over it and I thought back to the other examples I had posted and I thought.... Well, you know how I was talking about people freeing slaves when it was illegal? And how the US revolution was illegal? Well, I was thinking, why no do something like they did? Why not continue doing what I believe is right AND get the law changed? Is that fucking radical or what? Now, I'd still be a "criminal", but the rights I have inherent would be recognized by the authorities. Gee, I don't know WHY I didn't think of that sooner.
Post #5,164 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 4:55:05 PM 8/14/01 4:56:03 PM Reply	Been waiting for that one I was curious when you would put all the pieces together. If...rights are only expressable through the whim of those in power to grant or deny your expression of them. and if there is a difference between moral righteousness and legal rights and if you think a morally righteous thing should be a legal right Then the only two morally right courses of action are a) legal change and b) civil disobedience. (and I mentioned a) a long time ago and b) not too long ago also ) Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting" Edited by Fearless Freep Aug. 14, 2001, 04:56:03 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #5,177 by Brandioch 8/14/01 5:54:34 PM Reply	I was much older then, I'm younger than that now. "I was curious when you would put all the pieces together." I was hoping for better, but it was just a silly hope. "If...rights are only expressable through the whim of those in power to grant or deny your expression of them." No. All that the government can do is to facilitate their expression or punish their expression. "and if there is a difference between moral righteousness and legal rights" Yes, there is. "and if you think a morally righteous thing should be a legal right" That would be ideal. "Then the only two morally right courses of action are a) legal change and b) civil disobedience. (and I mentioned a) a long time ago and b) not too long ago also )" Hmmmmmm, why don't you try doing a search on my postings about painting cameras? Then check the dates on those posts. Today, you arrived at "civil disobedience" as a means to achieve my goals. Which was my original posting, many many many moons ago.
Post #5,181 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 6:09:28 PM Reply	because Which was my original posting, many many many moons ago. If you look at my first post to you you said "You cannot photograph me. You cannot film me." and I merely pointed out that I could indeed photgraph and film you currently, technically, legally. I didn't care if you would use civil disobedience or try to change the law. My only point is that you say "cannot" to what is currently very much a "can". and it's your use of a verb tense to insist that right now it cannot be done when what you really seem to mean is that yuo wish it couldn't be done or you'd like it not to be done or wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't done or whatever you really mean, your statement is wrong. That was it Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,189 by Brandioch 8/14/01 6:39:38 PM Reply	You cannot shoot me. You cannot stab me. You cannot kick me. You cannot beat me with a stick. Ah, you think. But I can. I can't do it legally, but I can still do it. And, under the correct circumstances, I can even do it legally. Context, Jay. Context.
Post #5,161 by addison 8/14/01 4:41:09 PM Reply	Too bad the posting lacks said same. Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law? Did you? Nope. Nor did I miss how you've stated it as the current case for weeks now. Are you retracting all of those? (including all of those implied sighs and "will we have to do this all over again"?) Cause.. either its one, or its the other. Well, if you didn't miss those posts, why is it that you STILL don't understand that I realize it is NOT a CURRENT law? Because until your posts about an hour ago - you've spoken as that it IS. Of course, our reading comprehension is exceeded only by our memory. Addison
Post #5,162 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 4:44:01 PM Reply	No kidding Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law? Nope, and that was my point. I said you couldn't currently legally or technically do what you claimed to be able to do (and yes, your use of language, especially present tense verb sense, was a direct claim that you could stop it now) Since you disagreed with me saying that you couldn't do it, I assumed that meant you think you can do it, so I asked how. Since you come back and say you can't do it legally currently, you've just agreed with my original point that you couldn't do it legally currently. Thank you Here's the process...a bit slower Brandioch:All I can do is to stop them from recording my image. Jay: Currently, legally and technically, you can do neither. Brandioch: "legal" == "right" Jay: I'm curious how you think you can currently, technically. Brandioch: Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law? Notice that your last line says the the same as my first? Incidentally, I asked how you could do it technically because I figured you might willing to break the law in a exercise of civil disobediance to claim your right. Now you have no technical answer and throw your hands up about the legal issue so your first statement, "All I can do..." is wrong, because you can't technically, yuo can't legally, and you are unwilling, at least based on this post, to cross the legal line. If you change the law in the future, maybe you can say uit, but as of now, you can't. And if you are unable to cross the line of legality to exercies you're right....do you really believe it? Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,111 by addison 8/14/01 3:15:29 PM 8/14/01 3:16:21 PM Reply	Not currently. And Jay already handled most of it. All I can do is to stop them from recording my image. No, you can't. You are saying that since you can't STOP me from looking at you, you can't prevent it. Well, you can't stop me from taping you then. Same thing. You're setting up a distinction. You say you own your image, except for.. No, it doesn't work that way. If you want it to, you have to go change the law for that effect. Because right now, Cameras=Eyeballs. Simple, the camera can record my image to be displayed to others. You memory cannot. Again. Your distinction/choice. Which implies that you also have the choice to prevent others from looking at you. You know, I have hope that ONE DAY you will UNDERSTAND that our CURRENT LAWS do not cover this. Reality Check: That's been my point, from day one. I'm not the one claiming that they do. Or that I can do something illegal. You are. So until you get back to reality.. How about leave the insults at home. Addison Edited by addison Aug. 14, 2001, 03:16:21 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #5,126 by wharris2 8/14/01 3:41:40 PM Reply	There is a distinction. BTW, have they even worked? If we're going to talk abstractions for a second, there is a difference in that we generally limit the government to those actions that we permit them, not to what they can get away with. We permit police certain exceptions not available to the normal citizen, such as (generally) protection from false arrest lawsuits and permission to deadly force in some circumstances. We permit the government to levy taxes but not unequivocably (and if you live in Tennessee, you protest if the government tries to give itself too much power). I think the Tampa cameras are a police "oh gee isn't technology wonderful" power grab. Now that may not mean they can't get away with it, but I would hope there would be more public pressure against it. Speaking of the Tampa cameras, have they even worked? The only time I've heard of someone even being questioned was the mis-identification of the construction worker, and that wasn't even the Faceit process. If the process is as they are claiming (identiification of criminals), they should at least trot out a few successful arrests. If they can't point to any, then arguably either the software doesn't work (and they should stop wasting their time), or they aren't using the cameras as they are supposed to be used (going back to the "get to play with computers and technology" argument as being the primary purpose of the system, not arresting criminals.) French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #5,139 by addison 8/14/01 3:57:36 PM Reply	Not in this context, and I don't know. Right now, what you can see, you can record. Restricting what you can record in public view) is, with few exceptions, both at the same time. If something is Top Secret, you don't let people see it. Not just try and keep them from photographing it. Same as walking down the street. Nothing legally stops anyone from taking your picture, other than polite convention (and some laws that are somewhat specific in their implementation). So for the police to video what is in public isn't unprecedended, nor, in my opinion, is it a grave injustice, or illegal. Saving said tapes and data isn't either. And if you want to prevent either of the above, you'll need new laws to change either or both of those equvilances. (But thanks for coming around to my way of thinking after a couple weeks, Brandioch, I was starting to give up). I don't know if the Tampa police were doing anything as motivated as a tech grab - more likely, they HAD the cameras, why not see how they work? But when a system is being put together, I don't object to some time to get things sorted out (when death isn't on the line). You're right about the limits to government. But capturing images in public is rather well-established and has been for some time. Building a database of said images, well, the implications of that worry me. But the way to solve that isn't to insist that they "can't do it", but to see how we can prevent them from doing it. Addison
Post #5,166 by wharris2 8/14/01 4:57:37 PM Reply	That only has one solution Building a database of said images, well, the implications of that worry me. But the way to solve that isn't to insist that they "can't do it", but to see how we can prevent them from doing it. And how would you suggest doing that, short of just not going to Tampa? (Or other cities with databases of images.) French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #5,127 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:41:41 PM Reply	Thanks for your participation. "Not currently." Thank you. Now if you don't mind, I have to go buy some more niggers to work my plantation. "legal" == "right"
Post #5,133 by addison 8/14/01 3:49:47 PM Reply	I've gravely mistaken... Your character. I had presumed that you were very strongly based in logic, and fact, and the here and now. Are you that incapable of understanding the concept of time? "legal" == "right" As opposed to "What Brandioch things == right, and screw anybody in his way?" I'll take legal, over that, anyday. Cause you see - that's the sort of thinking that CAUSED slavery, and many of the worlds other ills. But of course, that was THEN. This is NOW. And tomorrow will be the FUTURE, and you can't even manage to distinguish in your posts between them. (Gee, and we had to be able to do that to get out of 3rd grade? And people talk about South Carolina schools). Addison
Post #5,151 by Brandioch 8/14/01 4:18:22 PM Reply	Because you don't agree with me does not make me wrong. "I had presumed that you were very strongly based in logic, and fact, and the here and now." Again, your statements are partially right and partially wrong. That's why I break my up as I do. I am strongly based in logic (as far as that can go). But I am not strongly based in the here and now. Because the here and now is not the past, nor is it the future. I thought I had made that concept clear but I guess not. "Cause you see - that's the sort of thinking that CAUSED slavery, and many of the worlds other ills." Yep. And the REST of the world's ills were/are caused by the belief that "legal" == "right". It's called "freedom". I've covered that in my other posts. It is a right that cannot be taken away. The right to do what you BELIEVE is right. The consequences will vary from government to government and from time to time. But the RIGHT is always there. Inherent in the individual. All that the LEGAL SYSTEM can do is PUNISH the individual AFTER s/he exercises his/her RIGHTS. Which is why we now have heros who freed slaves before it was LEGAL to do so. As I've pointed out. Those "criminals" are todays "heros". The rights are inherent in the individual. All the government can do is use force after the fact. It's a very scary concept and one that lots of people try to hide from. Again, trading freedom for security while deserving neither. The freedoms you're exercising now were won by people willing to die to secure them for you. People who rejected the law of their government. People who wrote their own laws and formed their own government. Criminals. Traitors. Heros. Our "then" was their "here and now". Remember that. Then tell me that they were "right" or "wrong" for breaking the law.
Post #5,158 by addison 8/14/01 4:34:56 PM Reply	Nope, it doesn't. However, your inability to properly use tenses DOES. I am strongly based in logic (as far as that can go). Not when you state, as a matter of fact for the now, something that does not exist now, and might not ever. Then tell me that they were "right" or "wrong" for breaking the law. I've already dealt with this many times. I didn't say that at all. I said that its a slippery slope when you start breaking the law. I said that currently I can't think of a good justification for such. I have pointed out the obvious problems with solutions you've offered. The freedoms you're exercising now were won by people willing to die to secure them for you. Except they didn't argue that what they needed to do existed - they said they needed to make it so. The right to do what you BELIEVE is right. Like I said. Slippery slope. Abortion bombers. Murderers "But it was right to do that". Our "then" was their "here and now". Remember that. I (unlike you) haven't forgotten that. I haven't mixed up my tenses and my times. I have always said that it is not currently against the law - and said law must be changed if that worries you. I just saw that from you today. Addison
Post #5,182 by Brandioch 8/14/01 6:10:12 PM Reply	And man will never fly. "Not when you state, as a matter of fact for the now, something that does not exist now, and might not ever." I have not done that. I have stated that I have the inherent right not to be photographed without my permission. I do not have the legal backing of the government for that. I have stated that I will take whatever actions, even illegal ones, to ensure that my inherent rights are not infringed upon. "I didn't say that at all. I said that its a slippery slope when you start breaking the law. I said that currently I can't think of a good justification for such." Yep. It is slippery. And very scary. Again, trading freedom for security while deserving neither. I can think of a good reason to break the law. You don't agree. And somehow society continues. "I have pointed out the obvious problems with solutions you've offered." No you haven't. You've offered strawmen about cameras being outlawed (which I've countered with guns being legal). You claimed that every wacko would use this as a basis for breaking the law. I've agreed. That is a price of freedom. "Except they didn't argue that what they needed to do existed - they said they needed to make it so." No. They said that those rights EXISTED. They merely codified the rights that were already there. Then they went to fight those who wanted to infringe upon those rights. "Like I said. Slippery slope. Abortion bombers. Murderers "But it was right to do that"." Freedom.....Security.....Deserving neither. The price of freedom. "I have always said that it is not currently against the law - and said law must be changed if that worries you." And my point is that there isn't any requirement for me to follow a wrong law. I've never said that I would have it changed. But I don't have to wait for it to be changed.
Post #5,221 by addison 8/14/01 11:52:51 PM Reply	So after 2 weeks... You're now telling me exactly what I started off saying. (That its not the law now, and its a slippery slope when people decide to take the law into their own hands). And you're insulting my intelligence? "Not when you state, as a matter of fact for the now, something that does not exist now, and might not ever." I have not done that. Yes, you have. You have stated that you own your image, and you can prevent someone from capturing it. Today (I think, I'd have to check, but yesterday or today), no less. Before your sudden conversion. But you don't. You might in the future - but that's not what you were saying for the last while. That was only today that you began berating other people for "not reading" what you posted today, rather than what you posted prior. Um. And you're insulting.... why? Addison
Post #5,292 by Brandioch 8/15/01 1:48:29 PM Reply	And the loop starts again. "Yes, you have. You have stated that you own your image, and you can prevent someone from capturing it." Yes. I am saying that. I've been saying that all along. Because I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual whether or not the government recognizes them. So, whether I own my image or not does not depend upon whether the government thinks I own my image or not. My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not. The government cannot take my rights away, only punish me for exercising them. And so on and on and on and on. Now, as to the concept of CONTEXT. No. I cannot stop someone from photographing me. Anymore than you can stop someone from murdering you. Yet the common usage of the language would be "you cannot murder people". So, can I murder you? Yes or no.
Post #5,298 by addison 8/15/01 2:30:57 PM Reply	I can but hope that you really don't think this way. Yes. I am saying that. I've been saying that all along. But yesterday you berated and insulted and belittled when that was attributed to you. Because I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual whether or not the government recognizes them. That's a philisophical debating point. If you'd like to, that's fine. But when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong. If you say "The government should recognize this right"... But we've been over this. You're (at best) misusing English on purpose. At worst, you can't tell the difference yourself. You're confusing "right" with "ability". In any country in the world, you have the ability to do many things. What the government recognises is another story. What they're constrained from doing is yet another. In theory, the USSR had freedom of speech. The "right" was right there in black and white. But it wasn't respected by the government, I think, needless to say. So did it "exist?" The Bill of Rights enumerates some of the rights that were considered so basic, that any government who did not respect them/recognise them was invalid. My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not. Again, IN THAT SYSTEM, then everything is OK, because "right" is defined by each and every person. Completely unworkable. Just like your asseration that you can permit/deny people from looking at you (which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation). The government cannot take my rights away, only punish me for exercising them. I don't think you understand the concept of "Right" in this context. But in your construct, then everything everybody does is because of their "right" to it. Murder. Rape. Robbery. Genocide. They've got a "right" to it. Um. Which is completely nonsensical. I'll let you loop the loop and continue with this mental masturbation.. I'll just note that as of yesterday, you were berating people for not noticing that you said exactly what I said weeks ago... And.. you're.. still.....arguing... Have fun on the ride. Um, I guess its your "right" to do that. Addison
Post #5,329 by imric 8/15/01 6:20:47 PM Reply	Sorry. You ARE authoritarian. when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong. So - unless government grants you a right, you don't have it? I can but hope that you really don't think this way. In any country in the world, you have the ability to do many things. What the government recognises is another story. What they're constrained from doing is yet another. "Everything not illegal is compulsory. Everything not compulsory is illegal". I can but hope that you really don't think this way. Again, IN THAT SYSTEM, then everything is OK, because "right" is defined by each and every person. Completely unworkable. So - since the government hasn't defined whether I have a right to do "X", I have no right to do "X"? Rights depend on whether the government decides/defines "X", or that system is "Completely unworkable"? I can but hope that you really don't think this way. which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation No. He didn't say that. You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation. I can but hope that you really don't think this way. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #5,340 by addison 8/15/01 8:09:34 PM Reply	However, I do have the ability to read and understand. when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong. So - unless government grants you a right, you don't have it? Nope. Didn't say that. What did I say? If you say something diametrically opposed to what EVERYBODY ELSE says and thinks, that's "usually considered to be wrong". I'd have thought that to be self-evident.... but.... So - since the government hasn't defined whether I have a right to do "X", I have no right to do "X"? Rights depend on whether the government decides/defines "X", or that system is "Completely unworkable"? Brandioch has claimed that he has the right to put your eyes out. He has claimed he has EVERY RIGHT HE WANTS. No external validation. No constraints. But they can put him in jail (somehow, I don't think he understands the concept of "rights') for exercising them. This is what he said. Talk to him about it. Stop telling me its not what he said. Peter certainly noticed what he said. Read the post above his reply. which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation No. He didn't say that. You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation. Learn to read. If you can't, call 1-800-ABCDEFG. They'll send you helpful tapes. He did say exactly that. Go find it. That's EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. He owns the rights to his image and HE CAN ARBITRARILY DECIDE WHO CAN VIEW IT. And not only do I not "refuse to admit" the difference, I've MENTIONED IT SEVERAL TIMES. Click on the top post here. (After you get the helpful tapes). Read and see where I mention this on several occasions. See where I say that.. Oh, hell, why bother. This would presume you actually were PAYING ATTENTION. So much easier to just scream and be reactionary. I can but hope that you really don't think this way. When you don't bother to read, I don't really care. I care about people's opinion who pay attention, and read. Addison
Post #5,342 by Ashton 8/15/01 8:24:33 PM Reply	I'm not sure that's true. Many of us deem that we have inalienable rights (those already enumerated and most.. not yet so). We would deem this, whatever the Constitution said; fortunately it also agrees - even provides a Rx for such time as our government should ever forget it. Your consistent POV is the assertion and reassertion that: we haven't. We haven't 'rights' until this week's government list - enumerates such rights. Or last year's -- but never, next year's, in your mentation. That's all: you wait for them to be 'allowed'. I and others know that the government is an imperfect, necessary institution - intended to ameliorate when disputes arise amongst the many and their interpretations. Still and always: the rights inhere. The rest is only about managing their practical expression. It's a philosophical POV - the one this country was formed around. Ashton
Post #5,345 by imric 8/15/01 8:44:24 PM Reply	Bullshit. Learn to use a dictionary. Hell - if you don't own a dictionary, use [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Image\|dictionary.com] I'll cut and paste for you, though. im\ufffdage n. 1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness. 2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror. 3. One that closely or exactly resembles another; a double: He is the image of his uncle. 4. 1. The opinion or concept of something that is held by the public. 2. The character projected to the public, as by a person or institution, especially as interpreted by the mass media. 5. A personification of something specified: That child is the image of good health. 6. A mental picture of something not real or present. 7. 1. A vivid description or representation. 2. A figure of speech, especially a metaphor or simile. 3. A concrete representation, as in art, literature, or music, that is expressive or evocative of something else: night as an image of death. 8. Mathematics. A set of values of a function corresponding to a particular subset of a domain. 9. Computer Science. An exact replica of the contents of a storage device, such as a hard disk, stored on a second storage device, such as a network server. 10. Obsolete. An apparition. tr.v. im\ufffdaged, im\ufffdag\ufffding, im\ufffdag\ufffdes 1. To make or produce a likeness of: imaged the poet in bronze. 2. To mirror or reflect: a statue imaged in the water. 3. To symbolize or typify: a kneeling woman imaging the nation's grief. 4. To picture mentally; imagine. 5. To describe, especially so vividly as to evoke a mental picture of. 6. Computer Science. 1. To print (a file) using a laser printer, imagesetter, direct-to-plate press, or similar device. 2. To transmit (an exact replica of the contents of a storage device) to another storage device: imaged the hard drive to the server. 7. To render visually, as by magnetic resonance imaging. Source: The American Heritage\ufffd Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright \ufffd 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. As to the rest, it's "govern"ment. Rights are regulated to allow people to live together succussfully, as in "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose". Do I have a right to free speech? I think so. Is it regulated? Yes. Is that a function of government and law? Yes. Is some compromise necessary to live with others that also want to execise thier rights? Yes. Tell me how this means that rights only exist when granted by some authority. Further, I seem to remember his saying that 'civil disobedience' also means that one must be ready to pay the consequence - including going to jail. It seems to me that there is no misunderstanding of law and how behaviour is "governed" there. And civil disobedience CAN in clude spray-painting cameras. You, on the other hand, brook no disobedience to authority at all, it seems. Such a "brave new world", that has such people in it! Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #5,346 by addison 8/15/01 8:51:17 PM Reply	Learn to read [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5048\|[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5048\|http://z.iwethey.or...ntentid=5048]] Of course, I'm sure that you'll not read that, either. You, on the other hand, brook no disobedience to authority at all, it seem. Only to those too stupid to read. Go back and read what I said 2 weeks ago on the subject. At the start. The exact same damn thing he JUST SAID YESTERDAY. Damn, but I'm good. Addison
Post #5,356 by imric 8/15/01 9:41:23 PM 8/15/01 9:48:37 PM Reply	Good? At what? You know how to code, no? Do you remember what substitution is? OK, since you didn't bother reading the definition that I so kindly provided you, we'll try substitution. Since "image" is: 1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness. 2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror. for the purpose of your cite: image="reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror." Now, let's substitue. My [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror] is not public. Even when I am in public. My [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror] is my own. I reserve all rights to my [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror]. You can look at me. (emphasis mine) You cannot photograph me. You cannot film me. Now, you assert ([link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5298\|here]) that he is saying that he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation". Bzzzzt. NOWHERE does he say that. In fact, he says EXPLICITLY that "You can look at me". Sure doesn't sound like he is saying he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation". Further, you become insulting to me when I say "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation.", [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5329\|here]. All because you (willfully?) don't know the meaning of the word "image". Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Edited by imric Aug. 15, 2001, 09:48:37 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #5,359 by boxley 8/15/01 10:28:03 PM Reply	howsabout we all chip in and Buy Addy a poloroid camera and a round trip ticket to Kabul to nonchalantly take photo's of people in public. (sorry Addy medical and legal insueance is not covered) and while he celebrates his right to take pictures in public we can keep a team of mercenaries on standby to rescue him before he is stoned to death. Now taking pictures in public kinda depends on which public you are in. Now I dont advocate stoning people to death for takin my picture, but under the freedom of religion claus you cannot take mine. (make no graven image) thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #5,361 by addison 8/15/01 10:35:46 PM Reply	Re: Good? At what? Do you remember what substitution is? OK, since you didn't bother reading the definition that I so kindly provided you, we'll try substitution. He has claimed absolute and utter ownership of HIS IMAGE. The implications of that, if not clear to you, I shouldn't pursue further.(but I guess I have to) Further, you become insulting to me when I say "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation.", here. You mean, in reply to the insults directed at me? After for two weeks saying that if you want a difference you have to legislate said same? I didn't say I didn't see a difference. I said that legally there wasn't, and trying to make those distinctions is splitting hairs, and is damn hard. And I said that enough there SHOULDN'T be a problem understanding that. reading what OTHERS said I said, however... All because you (willfully?) don't know the meaning of the word "image". No, because I've pointed out the problem with (yesterday's) Brandioch (he's changed his tune today) statements that he OWNS his image, and has exclusive rights to it. NOWHERE does he say that. In fact, he says EXPLICITLY that "You can look at me". Sure doesn't sound like he is saying he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation". BZZZT. According to his logic, he ALLOWS you to look at him - and he could change that. Don't talk to ME about that - talk to him. Oh, and anatomy note? You see an "image" on the back of your retina - after it goes through a lens. There's no difference between that, and a 35 MM SLR, to that point. Facts in the way. So how do you distinguish between them? I've been pointing out the problems with Brandioch's "solutions". And your main point - that "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation." isn't true. I HAVE stated that according to current laws, the are so close as not to be a problem. Which unless you can prove otherwise, I'll stand by. And that's what I've been saying for 2 weeks. Currently, there is (essentially) no difference. If you WANT there to be a difference, you should get the laws concering such changed, rather that just destroy things. Addison
Post #5,369 by Ashton 8/15/01 11:46:04 PM Reply	Heh.. You__still__don't__ Get!__it__...____a-tall.
Post #5,429 by Brandioch 8/16/01 12:40:32 PM Reply	Again, strawman. "No, because I've pointed out the problem with (yesterday's) Brandioch (he's changed his tune today) statements that he OWNS his image, and has exclusive rights to it." Because you want to misunderstand does not mean that I've changed my position. "BZZZT. According to his logic, he ALLOWS you to look at him - and he could change that." No. You are free to look at me. You are not free to take pictures of me. We've been over this again and again and again. But, because it is important to your position that I be the one who is making unreasonable demands here, you do not want to see the distinction. You do not have the right (moral) (inherent) to photograph me. You do have the right (moral) (inherent) to look at me. The distinction is whether a physical copy of my image is made. "There's no difference between that, and a 35 MM SLR, to that point." And you can LOOK at me through a camera. You just cannot capture my image on film. "Facts in the way. So how do you distinguish between them? I've been pointing out the problems with Brandioch's "solutions"." Again, the "problems" you've been pointing out have been clarified in the past. It isn't about VIEWING me. It is all about CAPTURING my image. Film, tape, whatever. Anything other than the cells in your brain. "If you WANT there to be a difference, you should get the laws concering such changed, rather that just destroy things." And until such time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option.
Post #5,445 by DonRichards 8/16/01 2:38:51 PM Reply	Agree except for one point ...And until such time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option. I would say that civil disobediance in response to unjust government is, at least among right thinking men, a requirement, not an option. "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #5,462 by Ashton 8/16/01 4:12:58 PM Reply	Amen (to coin a phrase) Brevity Award ****
Post #6,095 by addison 8/21/01 2:29:19 PM Reply	Its not a strawman if its exactly what you're saying. Your inability to understand what you, yourself, are saying, ain't my problem. Because you want to misunderstand does not mean that I've changed my position. Nope. Because you've changed your tune means you've changed your position. Golly, how that works. No. You are free to look at me. You are not free to take pictures of me. As I keep pointing out, this means that you are establishing a criteria. You. You are establishing an arbitrary criteria - and as such, can be as arbitrary as you'd like. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work that way. Because that's called "anarchy". You're in public, I certainly can look at you. Even take pictures of you. Not just because its legal, but because its (damn near) impossible to make a disctinction between the two. You may not like it. You don't have to. Tough. That's what happens when you're in public. You do not have privacy. We've been over this again and again and again. Yes, we have. And as long as you continue to misuse the English language, there isn't a way past it. The distinction is whether a physical copy of my image is made. Which is your distinction. Thus, accepting that for the sake of argument, means you can then make ANY distinction. (such as ordering no one to look at you) Which I keep pointing out, and because it ILLUSTRATES exactly how ridicolous your argument is, you say that I've "misunderstood". By that logic, you HAVE to outlaw cameras. You CANNOT have ANYBODY taking ANY PICTURES at Disney World. This isn't my logic, its yours. This does not mean that there isn't a distinction between the two. But you making it as Emperor Brandioch "Thou shalt take no picture of me, but of my good side" doesn't change that the distinction isn't recognized, BECAUSE of how slight it is. In fact, the distinctions now made, are not in the image, but the use of said image. (as I've pointed out many times). I can take your picture. I have to meet certain conditions to publish for profit. I've had my picture in the newspaper, and on the evening news. (For making a really good looking tackle in a football game, actually). Could I have forbidden anyone from taking my picture, as you claim that I can? Again, the "problems" you've been pointing out have been clarified in the past. Just ignored. ch time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option. I suppose it is, but under your system, its total anarchy, meaning there isn't any such thing as "civil disobediance". You advocate anarchy. You demean and reduce "rights" to nothingness in your system. (if anything anybody does is a "right", then the "right" to murder is on a par with the "right" to free speech, and the "right" to molest children....) Fine. Its you making these unbacked assertations. If you're in public, there is no difference in me witnessing something you do, and videotaping/photographing it. Not currently, and not logically. If you're worried about the ramifications this implies for the government, by all means, lets put some (arbitrary) limits on what they can do with it. But that would be useful. Addison
Post #5,303 by boxley 8/15/01 3:22:05 PM Reply	utter agreement My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not Im free! doesnt matter whether the rest of thew world aknowledges that or not Im free! (break into a rousing chorus of magic bus) thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,892 by drewk 8/13/01 3:26:06 PM Reply	What about their rights? They can still disagree. But, while we are disagree'ing, they cannot impose their views upon me. But you've just imposed your views on them. They think your "privacy" is less important than their (and their children's) "safety." And you've just deprived them of the right to expression of that view. Please understand, I happen to agree with your view. And I understand the danger of allowing their view to be exercized: the images captured and the information learned can not be unseen and unlearned. But to say they can't impose their views on you is not a sound argument, as you are proposing instead to impose your views on them. This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #4,944 by Brandioch 8/13/01 7:40:53 PM Reply	Err on the side of more freedoms. Individual freedoms that is. But this is a core value thing. Again, trading freedom for security and deserving neither. :) Other people will value security more than individual freedoms. These people are "idiots". Just kidding. That's why there hasn't been a perfect society yet. Different individuals have different core values (and weight the core values they share differently). Do I have more of a "right" to my image than they have a "right" to their "security"? Is there a balance between losing some of my rights and gaining some of their security? If we step away from the emotions for a moment, you'll see that each of these decisions will result in a different society. At which point, it is purely a matter of personal preference which society you would WANT to live in. Which SHOULD dictate your choices in these matters. But is anyone's preference for any specific society "right" or "wrong"? Which moves us to theology/metaphysics and ultimate forms of "right" and "wrong". :) My views are slightly different. I view societies as human constructs. Just like houses or bridges. There is no such thing as a "right" house. It doesn't even matter if they fulfill their design goals (if they were designed) or if they last. Unless you value those criteria. And, depending upon the criteria you have for that house or bridge, will depend upon how you view it ("good" house or "fix'er up'er" or "shack").
Post #4,904 by addison 8/13/01 4:03:30 PM Reply	Errrrrrr..... They can still disagree. But, while we are disagree'ing, they cannot impose their views upon me. And, it really doesn't matter, cause if you lose the disagreement, you'll just diable the camera, anyway, right? You do realize that's what you're saying now, "I'm within my 'rights', to break the law and destroy public property".... Somewhere your lines of thought are missing a segment. :) Addison
Post #4,947 by Brandioch 8/13/01 7:49:46 PM Reply	Yep! "And, it really doesn't matter, cause if you lose the disagreement, you'll just diable the camera, anyway, right?" Yep! :) "I'm within my 'rights', to break the law and destroy public property".... And that is a right that can never be taken from me. Or, more correctly, the right to make that choice. Do I act as I believe is "right"? -or- Do I follow the law (which I believe is "wrong"). The only way to get me to stop colouring cameras is to change my beliefs about them. Whether that is actually possible is another matter of debate.
Post #4,953 by addison 8/13/01 8:42:00 PM Reply	But that flies in the face of what you said earlier. In which you said ~"I get to disable them, while we discuss it". But that's disingenious. Its not what you meant. Which is why I commented. The only way to get me to stop colouring cameras is to change my beliefs about them. Considering you're claiming privacy in public, I don't think you're even amenable to the discussion. (like above). Addison
Post #4,955 by Ashton 8/13/01 9:04:07 PM Reply	'Privacy' appears to distress you. Try Not, 'privacy in public' - a bit too cute for oxymoron manufacture. Maybe a less-compact, more pointed phrase - ~ Resistance to the institution of dossier-creation by government, upon random citizens - and with no 'probable cause / legal' oversight. That is more relevant - it illuminates the 'data collection' facet and the inevitable usage of that data. Definition would likely expand as new language loopholes are employed. We have not yet had more than token debate in the related areas of, private and Corporate accumulation of data - the 'intentions', usage and protection from theft (?) of certain such databases. So the problem extends clearly beyond just the initial topic of these threads: Proliferation of cameras used by government. (I'm sure that our proposed draft of new legislation shall prove compelling to the legislators, and prompt immediate hearings in all states - obviating any need for spray paint.) A.
Post #5,045 by Brandioch 8/14/01 12:23:30 PM Reply	I own my image. Simply because I walk outside does not mean that anyone can photograph me. The laws have not kept up with the technology. 200+ years ago, the issue didn't matter because you would have to PAINT that person's picture. Which required a degree of cooperation from that person. Early photography still required a very visible and occupied person and a willing "victim". Now we can automate all of that and place it anywhere. You wouldn't even know there was a camera there. I have a right to privacy (my image) in public places. It's mine. It cannot be taken without my permission. Why do I have the feeling that we're going to go through the original thread AGAIN at this point?
Post #5,053 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 12:41:49 PM Reply	Problem is... ...rights are only held as they are granted by law. You could advocate changing the law to grant or recognize those rights, but that doesn't mean you have those rights currently Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,055 by DonRichards 8/14/01 12:50:29 PM Reply	Bulls**t "...rights are only held as they are granted by law. " I think you may find it works the other way. Rights are mine until taken away by law. "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #5,056 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 12:58:01 PM Reply	Try it If you are of the philisohical bent that rights exist as some basic human quality outside or above law, that's fine. My religious beliefs give me the same conclusion "However", from any practical standpoint, rights are only meaningful if they are recognized and respected by the community around you and that recognition and respect are expressed in law. Or in authority that uses force to supercede community will. Consider the rights of officers as POWs not to be forced to do manual labor; that right only exists because of international treaty. If you are an American, the Bill Of Rights is a codification of basic rights as recognized by the government. It doesn't matter what rights you claim, if they are not recognized and respected by those with the power to ignore them, then they are meaningless Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,060 by DonRichards 8/14/01 1:07:52 PM Reply	Still don't agree Even from a practical viewpoint. Unless it is forbidden by law, I can run around naked with a chicken strapped to my head. It's my right. That action may result in new case law, but until that point I have the legal right to do anything not forbidden. You're argument seems to be approaching the "anything not forbidden is compulsory" stand. I know you well enough to believe this is not your intention. "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #5,063 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 1:17:33 PM Reply	Disconnect You're right to run around naked with a chicken strapped to your head is granted under "..liberty, and the persuit of happiness" (for strange definitions of 'happy', I guess :) Brandioch's right to his own image is far more tenous because it bumps up against "Freedom Of The Press" and maybe "Freedom Of Speech" which are already defined rights in law. (Probably also "Liberty" as in the right of the photographer to do what he wants, as long as he's not breaking any law) So until a law comes about that grants a person the right to not be photographed, that expressed right falls against already espablished legally granted rights Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,064 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 1:21:19 PM Reply	and Clarification Personally, for moral and ethical reason, I don't think people should be photographed without their permission. I'm not arguing that it should be ok. However there is a difference between what is 'right' in my eyes and what "rights" a person has, and the second involves legal issues as well, amd I don't think Brandioch has the legal position to claim what he feels is his moral right Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,069 by Simon_Jester 8/14/01 1:53:59 PM Reply	Cough. That's Declaration of Independence... not Bill of Rights. The Declaration, as nice as it is, isn't a document of the Government of the United States. (Hell, it was written before the Articles.) However, I think you'll find that Admendment 4 suits your needs. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Post #5,084 by addison 8/14/01 2:41:45 PM Reply	Not really. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Notice the explicitness of that. Now, even assuming that's being more literal than was intendend.. it doesn't approach the problem here - that of public images (and their storage/retrieval/use). If you walk down the street, and have something illegal in your pocket, there must be that said probable cause to search you. If you walk down the street with something illegal in your hand - no such probable cause is needed (the sight is all that is needed). Thereupon lies the big difference. The 4th is talking about the protection of private property. This issue is where are the limits of data collection, of someone in public. (For instance, that's why the thermal imagers were tossed out on 4th amendment grounds - they were used to penetrate into the houses, without warrent) Addison
Post #5,088 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 2:45:52 PM Reply	Umm..actually.... I thought he was saying that the fourth amendment gives you the right to run around naked with a chicken on your head.... Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,093 by addison 8/14/01 2:51:14 PM Reply	Errr. He was?
Post #5,100 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 2:59:07 PM Reply	Yeah... ...go back to [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5060\|Don's post] He was talking about running around...etc.. I replied saying that his behavior was probably protected as a right to "liberty, and the persuit of happiness". Simon countered that I was quoting from the Dec. Of Independence, which was not a legal document, but went on to say that the proper reference was porbably the 4th amendment. I thought he meant that as an alternative to what I said, in defense of of the naked chicken running Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,101 by addison 8/14/01 3:00:24 PM Reply	Oh. Well, in that case I misunderstood. :) Sorry 'bout that. Addison
Post #5,112 by DonRichards 8/14/01 3:15:34 PM Reply	NCRs unite! All naked chicken runners are better than clothed chicken runners and we deserve recognition, awards and free coupons entitling us to half off at any participating vendor. "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #5,153 by Brandioch 8/14/01 4:23:40 PM Reply	There's a flag on that play. "Brandioch's right to his own image is far more tenous because it bumps up against "Freedom Of The Press" and maybe "Freedom Of Speech" which are already defined rights in law." Jay is using references that were "illegal" and crafted by "criminals". "So until a law comes about that grants a person the right to not be photographed, that expressed right falls against already espablished legally granted rights" Okay, so, until England recognized the colonies "right" to form a nation, they had no such right. Again, rights usually aren't lost via revolution, but that is the way they are usually regained.
Post #5,156 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 4:33:23 PM Reply	Pick the flag up Again, rights usually aren't lost via revolution, but that is the way they are usually regained. No kidding. Until those with the power to ignore your rights recognize and respect those rights, you don't really have them in any meaningful way because you can't express them. Sometimes you have to kick them in the teeth to make them recognize your rights. I could say "I have the right to shoot every third person who drives past my house", but there are those who would deny me that right, and have the power to do so, so my expression of that right is meaningless Okay, so, until England recognized the colonies "right" to form a nation, they had no such right. Legally? No Morally? Yes Is the distinction sinking in yet? Very few revolutions are 'legally' right because they are revolutions against the current legally system. They may be morally right based on local definitions of morality Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,157 by DonRichards 8/14/01 4:33:33 PM Reply	Others have stated it more elegantly "We hold these truths to be self-evident... ...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " Did anyone notice that part that reads "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"? I do not consent to have my image recorded while in public without my express permission. The whole concept of these public recording devices linked to face recognition software and stored in permanent databases stinks to high heaven. If you can't see how it is incompatible with that nice bit of prose quoted up top, I feel for you. "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #5,163 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 4:54:08 PM Reply	Not sure who you are talking to... Did anyone notice that part that reads "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"? Yes, that's why I've been using terms like "Community" and "those with the power.." because, to me, the government should be an extension of the will of the community of people gathered together. In an ideal world, the community bforms the government, whom governs the people of the community according to the will of the community. That doesn't usually happen. And sometimes you get bullies and tyrants who do not derive their powers from consent but derive their unjust powers from might. The whole concept of these public recording devices linked to face recognition software and stored in permanent databases stinks to high heaven. If you can't see how it is incompatible with that nice bit of prose quoted up top, I feel for you. I agree. But it's an interesting journey between what is wrong and what is a right and I've been more focused on the quanderies of the journey itself Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,178 by Brandioch 8/14/01 5:59:53 PM Reply	The journey is the destination. Without understanding why something is "right" or "right" or "right", how can you tell whether something is "wrong"? And the only way to tell is to watch yourself as you go from one to the other. Core values and beliefs.
Post #5,061 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 1:09:05 PM Reply	oops... the title "Try It" was supposed to lead to a statement "Try exercising your rights when those with power to ignore your rights do not recongize and respect them" Brandioch may claim a right, but if the legal structure is not in place for that right to be recognized by the government and/or other indivudals, that 'right' is meaningless Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,137 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:54:14 PM Reply	That's one way to look at it. "f you are of the philisohical bent that rights exist as some basic human quality outside or above law, that's fine." With you so far. ""However", from any practical standpoint, rights are only meaningful if they are recognized and respected by the community around you and that recognition and respect are expressed in law." We're diverging here. One view is that government supports your rights. The other view is that government can RESTRICT your expression of your inherent rights. Usually through the application of violence. Need an example? Wanna buy some niggers? Cheap. "Consider the rights of officers as POWs not to be forced to do manual labor; that right only exists because of international treaty." So we move from rights inherent in the individuals to rights inherent in the ranks of a specific occupation. "It doesn't matter what rights you claim, if they are not recognized and respected by those with the power to ignore them, then they are meaningless" I guess that would depend upon what you believe "meaningless" means. Lots of revolutions happened when people wanted "meaningless" rights. Lots of people have died to gain such "meaningless" rights. Whether something has meaning or not is dependant upon a signature of the current authority?
Post #5,143 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 4:05:05 PM Reply	One and the same One view is that government supports your rights. The other view is that government can RESTRICT your expression of your inherent rights. Either way, your ability to express your rights is at the whim of those in power (government, local bully, whatever...). The line from a to b is very short. And for what it's worth, I don't like it. That's reality, I'm not at all happy that that's how life happens, but that's the way it happens. I guess that would depend upon what you believe "meaningless" means. "Meaningless" means, as I had said earlier, "practically expressable" The rights people fight and die for only matter if, in the end, those fighting for them actually win and have the ability to express those rights. They are not yet attained, not yet held, ideals worth fighting for, goals worth reaching to attain, but not yet possessed Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,160 by Brandioch 8/14/01 4:40:46 PM Reply	Insert standard example here. "Either way, your ability to express your rights is at the whim of those in power (government, local bully, whatever...). The line from a to b is very short." You seem to be forgetting a rather basic concept. "Breaking the law" No, the government cannot stop me from doing what I feel is right. The government can only punish me AFTER the fact. If they know I did it. If they can find me. There is risk involved. That is why they are called "heros". Risk and sacrifice. "Heros" yesiknowthattheyarecalledcriminalsbythecurrentauthorityandtheyarelegallycriminalsbecausetheyarebreakingthelaweventhoughtheydon'tagreewiththelaw........
Post #5,131 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:47:15 PM Reply	"legal" == "right" "...rights are only held as they are granted by law." Translation: "You have no rights that the government has not allowed you." "You could advocate changing the law to grant or recognize those rights, but that doesn't mean you have those rights currently" Translation: "You have no rights that the government has not allowed you." Summation: "legal" == "right"
Post #5,136 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:53:06 PM Reply	Without all the detail Make the distinction between the noun and the adjective and try again Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,172 by Brandioch 8/14/01 5:23:59 PM Reply	You can't handle that from the context? I would have thought that after this many posts, it should be clear. [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=right\|http://www.dictiona...l?term=right] "Right refers to a legally, morally, or traditionally just claim" You see, the "moral" right is inherent. The "legal" expression of the "moral" right can be facilitated or hindered. It is not possible to remove the "moral" right. On the other hand, it is possible to have a "legal" "right" to an "immoral" activity (slave ownership). But that is covered under my statement that government cannot deprive you of your rights, only punish you for their expression.
Post #5,071 by Simon_Jester 8/14/01 1:58:46 PM Reply	Actually, I think you own your painted image too... There was a Supreme Court case, back in the early 1800s (iirc) with a prominent manufacture using an image of a housewife on their products. The housewife was originally unaware that the image was used and eventually sued to be compensated for the image. I believe that image, at the time, was a painting, photography being what is was back then.
Post #5,082 by Simon_Jester 8/14/01 2:38:59 PM Reply	I'm wrong. The case I was think of was Robinson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (1902). Robinson's image was used and the NY Appeals Court ruled against Robinson as no law existed preventing the use of the image. A fast google search revealed a number of other cases, including Vanna White vs. Samsung (1999?) and Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. (1953). 1. In the Beginning. An offshoot of the right of privacy--or, more colloquially, the "right to be left alone"--the right of publicity as a separate doctrine generally is considered to have emerged in a 1953 Second Circuit decision, Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.(10) In that case, Judge Frank found an exclusive, assignable right of commercial exploitation of one's name or likeness.(11) He used the term "right of publicity" to distinguish this commercial right from the privacy concept of protection from an invasion of one's personal enclave of solitude.(12) Two influential law review articles followed the Haelan decision, one by Melville Nimmer(13) and one by William Prosser.(14) Prosser's article recognized that the appropriation tort at the root of the right of publicity fundamentally differed from the conventional privacy torts.(15) However, he still categorized it as a form of "privacy" tort, rather than as a separate and distinct claim.(16) Shortly after the Haelan decision, Nimmer argued that limitations on the privacy tort and other available torts made them unsuitable vehicles for protecting rights of publicity.(17) He asserted that the right of publicity should be treated "as a property (not a personal) right."(18) His rationale for such protection was that publicity values normally are the result of expenditures of time and effort by the celebrity and the celebrity should be "entitled to the fruit of his labors, unless there are important countervailing policy considerations."(19) From these roots a rather large tree has grown. No consistent doctrine has evolved that is followed in substantially all states.(20) However, many states have recognized some form of a right to control the commercial exploitation of one's name or likeness.(21) Most of the states have acceded to this through common law development;(22) ironically, New York, whose law the Haelan court ostensibly interpreted, recognizes only a statutory right.(23) The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the existence of right of publicity claims in Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.(24) Zacchini examined the extent to which the First Amendment limited the right of publicity granted under state law; it did not create an independent federal law of publicity rights. The Zacchini decision has been credited, however, with spurring interest in using the right of publicity by attorneys and judges.(25) The recent expansion of this right to the point reached in the White decision prompts this discussion. [link\|http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:4VfstHqHrZY:www.lawsch.uga.edu/~jipl/vol3/welkowit.html+Roberson+v.+Rochester+Folding+Box+Co.&hl=en\| SRC ]
Post #5,081 by addison 8/14/01 2:35:10 PM Reply	Not currently, you don't. Simply because I walk outside does not mean that anyone can photograph me. It would be a lot easier to actually talk to you if you stopped using the concept of Royalty (what I say, goes). Because, yes, anybody CAN photograph you, in public. If you don't like that, if you think that's wrong, that's fine. But saying that "does not mean" when its exactly what it does means either means that you're disassociated from reality, or are expressing what you'd like it to be. Now, if I photograph your image, and use it in certain endevors, yes, I can be legally bound to get your permission, first. (which might require me to pay you for said permission). I have a right to privacy (my image) in public places. It's mine. It cannot be taken without my permission. Yes, it can, because its not yours. (Except in those situations stated above). Because what you do in public is a matter of "public record". Capturing the reflections of radiation from 420-760 nm is part of said public record. Why do I have the feeling that we're going to go through the original thread AGAIN at this point? Because you're still talking that the way you think (which isn't sustainable in reality) is the way things are (not that's how they should be). See above. You have stated that I can only look at you (since you own your image) with your permission. Gee. Bet those cops in the Rodney King case had thought of THAT. Addison
Post #5,020 by jb4 8/14/01 9:44:39 AM Reply	Wrong verb My point is I believe that the way we combat bad law is by a civilised process involving duly elected representatives and large amounts of paper.(Emphasis mine) What world are you living in? There hasn't been a "duly elected representative" in either country for somewhere around a half century or so. The verb you're looking for is "bought-and-paid-for" (which, of course, makes the following word, "representative", the second half of an oxymoron). jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #5,035 by pwhysall 8/14/01 11:33:32 AM Reply	Ahem At the risk of starting a flamewar, I'd like to point out that over here, we don't need to buy our politicians. I can understand an American being bitter at the state of their electoral system (and the inordinate influence of monied interests thereon), but don't tar the UK with the same brush. That said, if there was anything approaching a left wing in US politics the problem would probably start to sort itself out. -- Peter Shill For Hire
Post #5,036 by boxley 8/14/01 11:38:55 AM Reply	but the repos and dems ARE left wing, at least to some of us Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #5,174 by Ashton 8/14/01 5:25:58 PM Reply	Well Ox, if you Really think that, Your pendulum must swing in a really Weird force-field. What I 'see' is: One Party, Republicrat. With Two Right Wings\ufffd (The er 'center' is now called umm 'The Left') There Ain't no "Left-wing" on this bird - a pure physics explanation of why: it has been flying in circles since ~ when Ronnie's "trickle-down" added several Trillion to the national debt and did severe damage to language.. along the way. Tick... . . . . Tock ???? eventually but not in sight yet. We may have to go through a Theocracy first: Ashcroft's prayer meetings before 'work' are: voluntary ?! but the folks say anonymously (for all ob-reasons): "hmmm, I'd prolly better go or ____" And so it goes in Murica the Righteous. Left-wing. Hah !!
Post #5,199 by boxley 8/14/01 9:17:03 PM Reply	naw both a buncha commies :) what is a socialist/lefty/commie? One who believes the government knows best and the government is governed for and by the cronies of the government class. The rights of the little folk and fringe folks are trampled in the name of safety and common sense. If you look at the laws on the books in our younker years, aside from civil rights laws we have a lot less personal freedom than before. Now the dems have their cronies as well as the repos, just a different set of folks and us fringers are tracked, litigated against and imprisoned by the whims of the governed class while a member of that class literally gets away with murder. Already too left wing for my taste. Communists and Facists if one goes right far enough and the other goes left you get stalin and hitler two people with the same point of view. Aint a spit of difference between them. thanx, bill thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,787 by boxley 8/12/01 8:49:45 PM Reply	welcome to ox island diplomatic passports fer sale only 5k each valid anywhere you want to pick and choose the laws you obey. Sigh, wish it were true. Time for a little merc action in Mustang perhaps? Ripe for the pickings, or East Timor would be a good bet. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk

Welcome to IWETHEY!